What is a Motion for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction?

“A judgment can be void for lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction or for the granting of relief which the trial court had no power to grant. A trial court has the inherent power to set aside a judgment void on its face at any time.” Connelly v. Castillo (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1583, 1588; Strathvale Holdings v. E.B.H. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249.

A court may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of California or of the United States. Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10. The assertion of personal jurisdiction by a California court is proper if it “comports with the limits imposed by federal due process.” Young v. Daimler AG (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 855, 865.

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.” HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1166; Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316. A defendant’s conduct with the forum state must be such that the defendant has “fair warning” that its activities might subject it to personal jurisdiction. HealthMarkets, Inc., supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1166–1167; Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472; Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd., v. Super. Ct. of California, Solano County (1987) 480 U.S. 102, 113. Each defendant’s “contacts” with the forum state must be assessed individually. Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783, 790.

“A summons is the process by which a court acquires personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil action, and a defendant has an absolute right to demand that process be issued against him in a manner prescribed by law.” Mannesmann DeMag, Ltd. v. Super. Ct. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1118, 1122. “Due process of law does not require actual notice, but only a method reasonably certain to accomplish that end.” Baughman v. Medical Board (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 398, 402.

A defendant may serve and file a motion to quash service of summons on the grounds of a lack of jurisdiction over him or her. Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a)(1). A plaintiff opposing a motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction “has the initial burden to demonstrate facts establishing a basis for personal jurisdiction.” HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1167. If satisfied, the burden then shifts to defendant to show that exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. Id.

“A general appearance by a party is equivalent to personal service of summons on such party.” Code Civ. Proc., § 410.50(a); Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Sparks Construction, Inc. (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1145. “An appearance is general if the party contests the merits of the case or raises other than jurisdictional objections.” Geary St., L.P. v. Super. Ct. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1186, 1193-94. “By generally appearing, a defendant relinquishes all objections based on lack of personal jurisdiction or defective process or service of process.” In re Marriage of Obrecht (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1, 7-8.

Useful Rulings on Motion for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Recent Rulings on Motion for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

TITO A THOMAS VS MARK ANTHONY SARNO

When a defendant moves the court to quash service of the summons on the ground of improper service or lack of personal jurisdiction, the burden of proof is on the party who served the summons and complaint to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that service was proper or that the court is entitled to assume personal jurisdiction. (Ziller Electronic Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232; Dill v. Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-1440.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

ROGER VOLODARSKY VS GRAHAM GIBSON

On November 22, 2019, Defendant filed his motion to quash service of summons of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On January 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion, which included a request to conduct jurisdictional discovery. (Quash-Opposition, pgs. 9-10.) On February 4, 2020, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to quash and denied Plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiff filed the instant motion on February 14, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SILVIA GUTIERREZ VS ADIDAS AMERICA INC

.: BC663748 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS BASED UPON LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION Dept. 27 8:30 a.m. July 9, 2020 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. INTRODUCTION On June 5, 2017, plaintiff Silvia Gutierrez filed this action against defendant Adidas America, Inc. (“Defendant”) for negligence and premises liability arising from an incident where a mannequin fell on her while she was in one of Defendant’s stores.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

METAL LAW GROUP, LLP VS PIXIOR LLC, ET AL.

If a defendant properly files a motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the prima facie facts entitling the court to assume jurisdiction.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RYBACK VS. VALERO ENERGY CORP.

Jones in support of the Motion indicate a lack of personal jurisdiction. VEC is incorporated and headquartered outside of California. (Jones Decl., ¶4.) It is strictly a holding company with no employees, does not sell anything, own any real property, have any bank accounts in California, do any business in California, or solicit any business in California. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

GAMARRA V BUTLER

Butler’s motion to quash service of Summons and Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10(a): “A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, 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.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

TY NGUYEN, ET AL. VS AKIYAMA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (USA), A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Therefore, AIP/Goss Holdco, LLC’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is granted. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

WODYNSKI V. RICHEY

Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction by Specially Appearing Defendants VRBO Holdings, Inc., Homeaway.com Inc. (erroneously named as Homeaway, Inc.), and Homeaway Holdings, Inc., filed on 5-26-20 under ROA No. 41, is CONTINUED to 8-11-20 at 1:30 p.m.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

FORWARDLINE FINANCIAL, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS WC FENCING & BOBCAT SERVICES CORP, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL.

This is an express defense to the instant enforcement action under CCP §1716(b)(2) – the Russian Court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendant. On this fact, there is sufficient showing of a reasonable possibility of prevailing because lack of personal jurisdiction by the Russian is a defense to the Complaint’s claim.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, A PUBLIC ENTERPRISE FUND AND INDEPENDENT AGENCY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS GOLDEN DROP INC., A SUSPENDED CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Discussion When a defendant moves the court to quash service of the summons on the ground of improper service or lack of personal jurisdiction, the burden of proof is on the party who served the summons and complaint to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that service was proper or that the court is entitled to assume personal jurisdiction. (Ziller Electronic Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232; Dill v. Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-1440.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

NOVIN DEVELOPMENT VS. BROOKFIELD

(FAC ¶¶ 5, 24-29) Separately, Brookfield RP moved to quash the summons and complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction, the hearing on which has been continued to August 27, 2020 to allow Novin Corp to conduct jurisdictional discovery. The FAC asserts seven causes of action. Defendants do not challenge the sufficiency of the first cause of action against the Brookfield Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

JIANG'S INT'L TRADE CORP., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS FREDY CHIN, ET AL.

On February 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Chin, Miscellanity and Does 1-60 for: Breach of Contract Breach of Duty of Loyalty Unfair Competition Unjust Enrichment Misappropriation of Property Conversion On July 24, 2019, the court granted Miscellanity’s motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. A Case Management Conference is set for June 25, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

GEORGE GEOFFREY LELAND VS, JAY BROWN, ET AL

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO QUASH — MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF [DEFT] SHURWEST, LLC RULING The Motion to Quash is DENIED, The Court finds that specific jurisdiction exists; defendant Shurwest, LLC has purposefully established contacts with California, plaintiffs claims arise out of those contacts, and the court's exercise of jurisdiction comports with "fair play and substantial justice."

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

RODNEY LEWIS V. MOKI DOORSTEP CORP., INC., ET AL.

The Court grants defendant Alyssa Brown’s motion to quash the summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

KATHERINE SANCERI VS KASHA BATTEN-SMOUSE

.: VC067262 HEARING: 6/23/20 JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES #5 TENTATIVE ORDER Specially-Appearing Defendant Batten-Smouse’s motion to dismiss party for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED. Moving Party to give NOTICE. Specially-Appearing Defendant Batten-Smouse moves to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant Batten-Smouse committed conversion and fraud by exercising dominion over her dogs and not returning them.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KENZIE CONSULTING VS. CUNNINGHAM

After the Court denied a motion to quash based on lack of personal jurisdiction and a motion to dismiss for inconvenient forum, defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint. Instead of opposing the demurrer, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (“FAC”). Defendants, after engaging in the requisite meet and confer with plaintiffs, now also demur to the FAC pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivisions (e) and (f).

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

CRUZ VS THE ASNY COMPANY HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 2020-15 BY THE ASNY COMPANY LLC, TAHITI VILLAGE VACATION CLUB, SOLEIL MANAGEMENT LLC

Defendant obtained a judgment of dismissal after successfully moving to quash the service of summons and compliant based upon lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant seeks attorneys’ fees pursuant to Nevada Revised Statute 18.010(2)(a). Assuming that Nevada law applies, this section is not a basis for awarding fees to Defendant. This section provides as follows: 1.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

TODD VS MURPHY HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR DISMISS OR STAY ACTION FOR FORUM NON COVENIENS AND TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS BY SHANNON M MURPHY, DANA P M SMITH

As a result, the motion to quash service on Defendant Smith for lack of personal jurisdiction is moot, though the Court notes that there are no facts supporting general or specific jurisdiction over Smith.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

NOVIN DEVELOPMENT VS. BROOKFIELD RESIDENTIAL

s motion to quash based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff opposes the motion. For the reasons set forth, the hearing on the motion is continued to August 27, 2020 to permit Plaintiff to conduct jurisdictional discovery and for the parties to file supplemental papers to address the Court’s ability to exercise personal jurisdiction over Brookfield Residential Properties, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2020

MODA LLC ET AL VS HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

Nature of Proceedings: Motion to Quash; Preliminary Injunction Tentative Ruling: The court grants defendant Hartford Fire Insurance Company’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court orders plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction off calendar.

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

KATHERINE SANCERI VS KASHA BATTEN-SMOUSE

#8 TENTATIVE ORDER Specially-Appearing Defendant Batten-Smouse’s motion to dismiss party for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED. Moving Party to give NOTICE. Specially-Appearing Defendant Batten-Smouse moves to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant Batten-Smouse committed conversion and fraud by exercising dominion over her dogs and not returning them. The FAC asserts causes of action for: 1. Conversion 2. Fraud 3.

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PICO RIVERA FIRST MORTGAGE INVESTORS LP V. HENRY AGUILA

Rather, if a party purporting to make only a “special appearance” seeks relief on any basis other than lack of personal jurisdiction, the appearance is a general appearance. (See Szynalski v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1, 10.) Here, Baschung, Thapar, and Keller Williams sought to have the court deny Aguila’s motion for leave to file his SACC, on grounds of judicial estoppel, timeliness, prejudice, and lack of sufficiency of the pleading.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

ELIAS NAKHLEH VS JOHNNY MEGUERDITCHIAN, ET AL.

Discussion When a defendant moves the court to quash service of the summons on the ground of improper service or lack of personal jurisdiction, the burden of proof is on the party who served the summons and complaint to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that service was proper or that the court is entitled to assume personal jurisdiction. (Ziller Electronic Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232; Dill v. Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-1440.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

  • Judge

    Richard E. Rico or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STEPHEN GERSHMAN VS. YEHUDA VAKNIN

E.B.H. (2005, 2nd Dist.) 126 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1250 (“Lack of personal jurisdiction renders a judgment (or default) void, and the default may be directly challenged at any time.”). Where there was never valid service of summons, the court must set aside the default even where there is no showing of a meritorious defense. Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc. (1988) 485 U.S. 80, 86-87.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

MITCHELL ENGINEERING/OBAYASHI CORPORATION ET AL VS. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

("TCI")'s motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted. "When a nonresident defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the factual basis justifying the exercise of jurisdiction . . . The plaintiff must do more than merely allege jurisdictional facts; plaintiff must provide affidavits and other authenticated documents demonstrating competent evidence of jurisdictional facts." (BBA Aviation v. Sup.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 39     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.