Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 23AHCV01308, Date: 2023-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV01308, Date: 2023-09-25 Tentative Ruling

On June 8, 2023, plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”) filed this action to recover damages arising from childhood sexual assault. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Jacinto Godinez (“Godinez”) committed acts of sexual assault against her while she was a minor and member of the church and church-related programs operated by defendants North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists (“NAD”), Southern California Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists (“Conference”), All Nations Seventh-Day Adventist Church (“All Nations Church”) (collectively, the “Entity Defendants”). (Compl., ¶ 2.) Godinez is alleged to have been employed by the Entity Defendants at these programs. (Compl., ¶ 2.)

Plaintiff alleges that NAD is a religious non-profit corporation incorporated in Maryland which purposefully conducts substantial religious and affiliated programs and activities in the State of California and County of Los Angeles. (Compl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff further alleges that during the period of childhood sexual assault, NAD supervised and exercised control over Godinez, finalized and confirmed the appointments of pastors and ministers (including Godinez) and formulated administrative and organizational policies in Maryland which were followed by Conference and All Nations Church and other church-sponsored/affiliated programs and activities. (Compl., ¶¶ 7-9.)

On August 25, 2023, NAD filed this motion to quash service of summons and dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. NAD argues that it is a foreign corporation that lacks the requisite minimum contacts to be subject to personal jurisdiction in California and has not availed itself of the benefits of California. (Motion, p. 1.) NAD submits a declaration from Judy R. Glass, its treasurer and chief financial officer. Glass states that NAD is a citizen of the State of Maryland with its office located in Columbia, Maryland. (Glass Decl., ¶ 4.) NAD has never been incorporated in or maintained its principal place of business in the State of California. (Glass Decl., ¶¶ 4-7.) NAD does not: (1) engage or solicit any business in California, (2) pay taxes to California, (3) maintain a personal registered agent for service of process in California, (4) own or lease any real property in California, or (5) have a bank account, assets, property, or other facilities in California. (Glass Decl., ¶¶ 8-12.) Glass further avers that NAD never had any contact with Plaintiff and had no involvement with any of the facts and circumstances alleged in her Complaint. (Glass Decl., ¶ 13.) NAD only employs one person who resides in California who provides chaplain services for certain Seventh-day Adventist and affiliated organizations. (Glass Decl., ¶ 14.) NAD also employs one contract employee who resides in California and works remotely to provide supporting services to the Adventist Learning Community located in Berrien Springs, Michigan. (Glass Decl., ¶ 15.) NAD argues that these two employees are insufficient to establish minimum contracts for this Court to exercise jurisdiction because these employees are unrelated to the litigation and do not create an affiliation between California and the controversy underlying this claim. (Motion, p. 10.)

“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 Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) The exercise of personal jurisdiction is constitutionally permissible only if the defendant has sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum state so that the exercise of jurisdiction “does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (Internat. Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316; accord, Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 268.) The defendant's contacts with the forum state must be such that the defendant had “fair warning” that its activities might subject it to personal jurisdiction in the state. (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472.) “In judging minimum contacts, a court properly focuses on ‘the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” (Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783, 788.) ¿It is well-established that “[p]ersonal jurisdiction may be either general or specific.”¿ (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 268–269.)¿

“A nonresident defendant may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if his or her contacts in the forum state are ‘substantial . . . continuous and systematic.’ [Citations.] In such a case, ‘it is not necessary that the specific cause of action alleged be connected with the defendant’s business relation to the forum.’ [Citation.] Such a defendant’s contacts with the forum are so wide-ranging that they take the place of physical presence in the forum as a basis for jurisdiction.” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445.)

If a nonresident defendant does not have substantial and systematic contacts in the forum sufficient to establish general jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction may be established where the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits and the controversy is related to or arises out of a defendant’s contacts with the forum. (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 126-127.) “Specific jurisdiction is determined under a three-part test: (1) the nonresident defendant must do some act or consummate some transaction with the forum or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or results from the defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.” (Jewish Defense Organization, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1054.) Once it has been determined that a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts, these contacts may be considered in light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with “fair play and substantial justice.” (Burger King Corp., supra, 471 U.S. at p. 476.) Factors to consider are “the burden on the defendant, the interests of the forum State, and the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief.” (Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd., v. Superior Court of California, Solano County (1987) 480 U.S. 102, 113.) A court must “also weigh in its determination ‘the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of the controversies; and the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.’” (Ibid [citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 292].)

“A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead… may serve and file a notice of motion… to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10(a)(1).) “A plaintiff opposing a motion to quash service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction has the initial burden to demonstrate facts establishing a basis for personal jurisdiction.”¿ (HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1167.) The plaintiff must establish the facts of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.”¿ (Aquila, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 568.) “The plaintiff must come forward with affidavits and other competent evidence to carry this burden and cannot simply rely on allegations in an unverified complaint.”¿ (ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198, 210.)¿ “Declarations cannot be mere vague assertions of ultimate facts, but must offer specific evidentiary facts permitting a court to form an independent conclusion on the issue of jurisdiction.”¿ (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110.)¿¿¿ ¿“If the plaintiff satisfies that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.”¿ (HealthMarkets, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1168.)

Plaintiff submits various website links from the Entity Defendants’ websites, including:

- A copy of NAD’s “Organizational Structure” webpage with the following text in highlighting: “The General Conference . . . , the most extensive unit of organization, is made up of all unions/entities in all parts of the world. Divisions are sections of the General Conference, with administrative responsibility for particular geographical area.” (Jaafar Decl. Exhibit B.)

- A copy of the Constitution of the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists with the following text highlighted: “The General Conference conducts much of its work through its divisions, which in turn are comprised of unions in specific areas of the world. Each division of the General Conference is authorized to carry out responsibilities in the territory assigned to it. It shall act in full harmony with the General Conference Constitution and Bylaws, the General Conference Working Policy, and actions of the Executive Committee. [¶] In order to carry the authority of the General Conference, the actions of division committees shall, of necessity, be in harmony with and complementary to the decisions of the General Conference in session, and the actions of the General Conference Executive Committee between Sessions. (Jaafar Decl. Exhibit C.)

- A highlighted excerpt from the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual which states: “The Church Manual has existed in its current format since 1932 It describes the operation and functions of local churches and their relationship to denominational structures in which they hold membership. The Church Manual also expresses the Church’s understanding of Christian life and church governance and discipline based on biblical principles and the authority of duly assembled General Conference Sessions.” (Jaafar Decl. Ex. D, p. 17.) Another excerpt from the manual states: “The General Conference represents the worldwide expression of the Church. Its constituent membership is defined in its Constitution. To facilitate its worldwide activity, the General Conference has established regional offices, known as divisions of the General Conference, which have been assigned, by action of the General Conference Executive Committee at Annual Councils, general administrative oversight for designated groups of unions and other Church units within specific geographical areas.” (Ex. D, p. 29.)

- A link from Conference’s website titling “Our Churches,” which states that the Southern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists has more than 150 congregations with tens of thousands of members. (Jaafar Decl. Ex. E.)

- A link from Seventh-day Adventist website, stating that divisions have administrative and supervisory responsibilities for groups of church units. (Jaafar Decl. Ex. F [Doe 2].)

- A link from NAD’s website, outlining brand guidelines to ensure “consistency” with logos, typography, and color palette. (Jaafar Decl. Exs. G, H.)

- A link from NAD’s website which depicts the “Theology of Ordination Study Committee Report.” (Jaafar Decl. Ex. I.)

- A link from Seventh-day Adventist Church’s website with a copy of its “Mission Statement” (Jaafar Decl. Ex. J].)

Plaintiff argues that NAD is subject to general jurisdiction under the representative services doctrine because it has pervasive, systematic and continuous contact with California by controlling and implementing policies over each local church through union conferences and local conferences. (Opp., p. 12.) Plaintiff claims that union churches and local conferences operate through NAD and NAD enforces the corporate policies of its membership organizations as well as its standards for creating new local churches, dissolving churches and companies, employing pastors and elders, prerequisites for membership of the church, and general principles and process of discipline. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff cites to Paneno v. Centres for Academic Programmes Abroad Ltd., in which the court held that a non- resident defendant headquartered in the United Kingdom and operating a travel abroad student program was subject to general jurisdiction in California under the representative services doctrine through its separate California-based company. (Paneno v. Centres for Academic Programmes Abroad Ltd. (2004) 118 Cal. App. 4th 1447.) The court found that the UK defendant “engage[d] in business operations closely connected to the business of” the California-based company which plaintiff contracted with, even if the defendant organizations were not parent-subsidiaries of one another. (Id. at p. 1457.) Moreover, the court noted that the defendants utilized “the same generic trade name and that “by setting up two related corporate entities – one to recruit and enter into contracts with students and one to provide all necessary accommodations for them – [the UK defendant] [was] attempting to avoid answering to any claim for negligence in California.” (Id.) The court concluded that it “[would] not allow such trickery to be used to deny [plaintiff] his day in court.” (Id.)

Here, however, Plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient for the Court to conclude that NAD exercises control or oversight over local churches or other entities in California to be “essentially” at home in California. Plaintiff’s excerpts from websites only reflect the existence of a hierarchy with general statements of “administrative responsibility” and doctrinal uniformity. Also, NAD’s guidelines to ensure consistency with logos and branding for all churches in its division, including those in California, are not evidence of such pervasive, systematic and continuous contact with California as to subject it to general jurisdiction.

Plaintiff’s evidence is also insufficient to establish that NAD is subject to specific jurisdiction. “A nonresident defendant is subject to specific personal jurisdiction only if (1) the defendant purposefully availed itself of the benefits of conducting activities in the forum state; (2) the controversy arises out of or is related to the defendant's forum contacts; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable. (Id.)¿ The Court of Appeal has restated this test in plainer language, explaining that courts test for specific jurisdiction “by examining the relationships between this litigation, these defendants, and California.”¿ (Dunne v. State of Florida (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1344.)¿ “These guidelines are not susceptible of mechanical application, and the jurisdictional rules are not clear-cut. Rather, a court must weigh the facts in each case to determine whether the defendant's contacts with the forum state are sufficient.”¿ (HealthMarkets, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1167 [citations omitted].)¿¿

There is no evidence that NAD exercised pervasive or systematic control over local churches in California or otherwise implemented or enforced any measures or policies relating to the prevention of sexual abuse. Although NAD states it employs two people in California, one who provides chaplain services for certain Seventh-day Adventist organizations and military personnel, and another who is a contract employee, (Glass Decl. ¶ 14-15), there is no allegation showing that the employment of these individuals is related to Plaintiff’s injuries.

In the alternative, Plaintiff requests the Court continue the hearing 90 days and allow limited jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiff proposes depositions, inspection demands, and interrogatories relating to NAD’s conduct and activity in California, its corporate structure and relationships or agreements with any member organizations, and other documents relating to by laws, governing structures, training, employment practices, screening and background checks. (Opp., pp. 14-15.)

The Court grants the request for jurisdictional discovery and CONTINUES the hearing.

The hearing on NAD’s motion to quash is continued to December 27, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 of the Alhambra Courthouse.

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.