Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case 23AHCV00476 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV00476, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Jay Hooper (“Plaintiff”), appearing in pro per, alleges that in 2007, he purchased 16 hectares of land in Ensenada, Baja California (the “Property”), from Defendant Jessica Belinda Rodriguez (“Defendant”) for $400,000. (Compl., ¶¶ 2-3.) Defendant subsequently sold 1 hectare of the Property to a third party and is offering other parcels of the Property for sale to others. (Compl., ¶ 3.)

Defendant now specially appears to quash the summons and complaint purportedly served on her by mail on March 8, 2023. Defendant argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction because she resides in New York. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s claims have already been adjudicated in a foreign court. Last, Defendant argues that the summons and complaint were not properly served on her.

“A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) “The Due Process Clause protects an individual’s liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful ‘contacts, ties, or relations.’” (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 471-472.) A state court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a party under circumstances that would offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd., v. Superior Court of California, Solano County (1987) 480 U.S. 102, 113.) When a defendant moves to quash service of process on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. (State of Oregon v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557.) Once facts showing minimum contacts with the forum state are established, however, it becomes the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Burger King Corp., supra, 417 U.S. at pp. 476-477.)

Personal jurisdiction can be general (all-purpose) or specific (case-linked). A court has general jurisdiction over defendants who are at home in the court's forum; general jurisdiction allows a court to hear any claim against a defendant, regardless of where the underlying events occurred. In contrast, specific jurisdiction allows a court to adjudicate only those disputes relating to the defendant's contact with the forum. (Bader v. Avon Products, Inc. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 186, 193 [internal citations omitted.])

A defendant is subject to general jurisdiction when it has substantial, continuous and systematic contacts in the forum state, i.e., its contacts with the forum are so wide-ranging that they take the place of a physical presence in the state. (Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 232.)

Defendant argues that this Court lacks general jurisdiction because she lives in New York and has lived there since 2009 and has not had any connections to California for over 14 years. Defendant also declares that she has: (1) never sued or been sued in the State of California before being named as a Defendant in this lawsuit, (2) never conducted any business, advertising, or marketing activities in the State of California, and (3) never owned any property in California. (Rodriguez Decl., ¶¶ 5-7.)

Plaintiff argues that Defendant was a California resident when the Property was sold and that “it appears that both [parties] were physically present in Los Angeles County at the time, because both parties had the agreement signed by attorneys-in-fact.” (Opp., p. 5.) However, in determining whether general jurisdiction exists, the judge must look at the defendant's contacts with California from the time when the alleged conduct occurred to the time of service of the summons. (DVI, Inc. v Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1080, 1100–1101.) Here, the parties’ agreement took place on April 15, 2008, and Defendant declares that she has resided in New York since 2009. Even the photo which depicts Plaintiff’s land for sale was taken on December 20, 2021, well after Defendant moved to New York. Accordingly, Defendant’s connections with California are not so “substantial, continuous, and systematic” as to impose general jurisdiction over her.

The Court must next decide whether it can exercise specific jurisdiction over Defendant based on her minimum contacts with California. “When determining whether specific jurisdiction exists, courts consider the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum; and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.” (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269 (internal citations and quotations omitted).)

Defendant argues that this Court lacks specific jurisdiction because the alleged agreement was signed in Ensenada and the Property is located in Ensenada. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant resided in California when she began her business relationship with Plaintiff and refers to Defendant’s LinkedIn profile to show that she attended California public schools from 2003 to 2007, including Long Beach City College and University of California – Los Angeles. Plaintiff also states that Defendant had a California driver’s license showing an address in Rosemead, California. However, Plaintiff does not show that there was a substantial connection between his alleged injury and Defendant’s California contacts. (Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 232.)

Plaintiff additionally submits a declaration attaching a copy of the original agreement entered into with Defendant and states: “At the time that document was executed, both myself, and to my knowledge, the Defendant were present in Los Angeles County.” (Hooper Decl., ¶ 2.) However, Plaintiff does not state the facts upon which he bases his alleged knowledge and the translated portion of the agreement only shows that it was signed in Ensenada, Baja California, by Manuela Ramirez Gundez “in her capacity as the legal representative of [Defendant].” (Hooper Decl., Ex. 1, p. 1.)

Lastly, Plaintiff claims that Defendant’s mother and sister came to his house in Arcadia, California, to collect money for Defendant. Plaintiff attaches receipts for payments that he says were signed in his home in Arcadia, California by Defendant’s mother and sister and copies of checks drafted from Plaintiff’s friend’s account made out to Defendant’s mother. (Hooper Decl., Ex. 4.) Plaintiff claims that Defendant’s mother and sister were acting as Defendant’s agent at the time but offers no evidence to establish an agency relationship or that their actions constituted purposeful availment of the forum by Defendant, other than to say that they “came to collect the money for Defendant.” (Hooper Decl., ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff requests the opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery regarding Defendant’s minimum contacts with the State of California. However, Plaintiff fails to “identify any specific area of inquiry that [he] would pursue if [he] were allowed to conduct discovery.” (Preciado v. Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 964, 972.) Plaintiff also fails to show that “discovery is likely to lead to the production of evidence of facts establishing jurisdiction.” (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 127.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.

Because the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over Defendant, the Court need not address whether service of the summons and complaint was defective or whether Plaintiff’s claims are barred by res judicata.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.