Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 22-01241461, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling
Defendant Douglas Henderson’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons
Defendant Douglas Henderson’s motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED. Plaintiff Robert S. Wright’s claims against Henderson are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I. Initial Matters
Before turning to the merits of the motion to quash, Wright offers two reasons the Court shouldn’t reach the merits in the first place. Both are without merit.
First, Wright notes Henderson’s motion to quash was filed past the deadline for answering or otherwise responding to the complaint. (The parties had negotiated a deadline of April 29, 2022; Henderson’s motion was filed on May 13.) Wright argues the motion is untimely and should be denied on that basis. But as Henderson points out in reply, even a defendant’s total failure to appear in a case doesn’t forfeit objections to personal jurisdiction. (See Brue v. Al Shabaab (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 578, 586.) If total failure to appear is insufficient to forfeit jurisdictional objections, then a fortiori an untimely appearance doesn’t forfeit them.
Second, Wright argues Henderson improperly served him via email even though Wright had not consented to electronic service, and that Henderson never followed up with mailed copies. He therefore urges the Court to reject Henderson’s motion. Any defect associated with improper electronic service was waived by Wright and Henderson’s stipulation of June 6, 2022 (ROA 119), in which Wright was given extra time to respond to this motion precisely because it was improperly served on him.
II. Merits Analysis
California courts may exercise personal jurisdiction “on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” (CCP § 410.10.) “Under the minimum contacts test personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. [Citations.] General jurisdiction exists when the defendant's contacts with the forum state are so ‘substantial’ or ‘continuous and systematic’ as to make it consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to subject the defendant to the jurisdiction of the forum even when the cause of action is unrelated to the defendant’s contacts with the forum. [Citations.] Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand, requires some nexus between the cause of action and the defendant’s activities in the forum state. Under well-established case law specific jurisdiction exists when (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.’ [Citations.]” (Brue v. Al Shabaab (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 578, 589-90.) “The plaintiff bears the burden of showing the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the state to justify jurisdiction.” (Id., at p. 590.)
Henderson has been a resident of Canada since 1971 and a Canadian citizen since 1977. (Henderson Decl. (ROA 95), ¶ 2.) He practiced medicine exclusively in Canada from 1971 to his retirement in 2019, and exclusively in the province of British Columbia from 1975 to 2019. (Id., ¶ 3.) Wright was a patient of Henderson in Abbotsford, British Columbia from 1980 to 1993. (Id., ¶ 4.) Henderson has never practiced medicine in California at any time. (Id., ¶ 5.)
The Court lacks general jurisdiction over Henderson, a Canadian citizen who has resided in Canada for over fifty years. The Court may only exercise specific jurisdiction, if any jurisdiction at all.
The Court also lacks specific jurisdiction over Henderson. It is undisputed that Henderson’s connection to this case is (1) Henderson’s treatment of Wright’s skiing injuries, and (2) Henderson’s subsequent participation in the insurance claims process and the British Columbia coverage litigation between Wright and his insurer. Nowhere in the complaint is Henderson alleged to have committed a single act in California, and Henderson puts on unrebutted testimony that he has never practiced medicine in California. Furthermore, as Henderson notes, the proof of service of summons states that Henderson was served in British Columbia, not California. (ROA 15.)
Wright has no real response to the foregoing. He attacks Henderson’s credibility, apparently suggesting Henderson’s declaration shouldn’t be believed, based on what he perceives to be Henderson’s false testimony in the British Columbia coverage case. But Wright offers no evidence to contradict Henderson’s declaration, only his own speculation about credibility.
Similarly, Wright criticizes Henderson for failing to disclose whether he has ever had any ties to California, such as residential property, bank accounts, or even vacationing in California. This misunderstands the specific jurisdiction analysis. Whether Henderson has a vacation home in California is irrelevant. (In any event, Wright offers only innuendo, not evidence.) For specific jurisdiction to attach, Henderson’s ties to California must be related to his alleged role in this case. Again, Wright’s allegations against Henderson in the complaint all describe acts Henderson allegedly committed in Canada.
Because this Court lacks general and specific jurisdiction over Henderson, the motion to quash service of summons is granted, and Wright’s claims against Henderson are dismissed without prejudice.