Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 22-01241461, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling
1. Plaintiff Dr. Robert
S. Wright's Notice of Motion and Motion to Review Minute Order of November 7.
2022 ROA 282
2. Defendant Special Appearing Borden, Ladner, Gervais, LLP's Notice of
Motion and Motion to Quash Service of Plaintiff's Summons and to Dismiss for
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction ROA 274
MOTION TO REVIEW MINUTE ORDER
Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to review the Court’s November 7, 2022 minute order is GRANTED. The clerk will issue a revised minute order nunc pro tunc that incorporates items 3 through 7 set forth on page 9 of Plaintiff’s motion.
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
Defendant Borden Ladner Gervais LLP’s (“BLG”) motion to quash service of summons is DENIED.
BLG’s objection to Exhibit 7 to the Wright Declaration (ROA 290) is OVERRULED. Wright declares the exhibit is an affidavit from Cherilyn Sheets, DDS. On its face, the affidavit purports to be from the prior British Columbia litigation between Wright and Sun Life. Wright represented himself in propria persona in that litigation. Wright thus has sufficient foundation to testify that this document is what it purports to be: an affidavit from the British Columbia litigation. Nor is the affidavit hearsay to the extent it communicates the statements of Luke Dineley (as opposed to the affiant, Sheets). In the FAC, Dineley is alleged to be an attorney employed by BLG. Dineley’s notarization of the affidavit, stating it was sworn to before him in Newport Beach, is thus a party admission.
The Court declines to reach the remaining objections, which are immaterial to this ruling.
GROUNDS FOR RULING
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, 589-590.) “The plaintiff bears the burden of showing the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the state to justify jurisdiction.” (Id., at p. 590.)
The Court lacks general jurisdiction over BLG. Wright alleges it is a Canadian limited liability partnership. (FAC, p. 12, ¶ 43.) He does not allege the existence of any continuous, systematic contacts with the State of California, nor does he put on any evidence of the same.
Specific jurisdiction is another matter. Among other things, Wright has sued BLG for legal malpractice. Without expressing any views on the merits of that claim, the Court notes that one of the alleged acts of malpractice is BLG attorney Luke Dineley traveling to Newport Beach, California to notarize an affidavit signed by Cherilyn Sheets, DDS. (FAC, p. 309, ¶¶ 33-34.) Wright’s declaration submitted in support of his opposition includes a copy of that affidavit. (ROA 290, Ex. 7.) The signature block for Dineley, acting as a “commissioner for taking affidavits for British Columbia,” states Sheets’ affidavit was “SWORN BEFORE ME at Newport Beach, California on 30 January 2015.” (ROA 290, Ex. 7, at p. 2.)
A California court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign partnership like BLG “if under the circumstances it could exercise judicial jurisdiction over a corporation on a similar basis of jurisdiction.” (Judicial Council of Cal., com. to CCP § 410.10.) “A state has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction over a foreign corporation which has done, or has caused to be done, an act in the state with respect to any cause of action in tort arising from such act, and any cause of action not in tort arising from such act unless the nature of the act and of the corporation’s relationship to the state make the exercise of such jurisdiction unreasonable.” (Ibid.)
BLG, through Dineley, is alleged to have committed an act of legal malpractice while physically present in Newport Beach, California. This is sufficient to give the Court specific jurisdiction over BLG.