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 Resources for Motion for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Recent Rulings on Motion for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

EARL NORBERT GARRETT, IV VS THE ENTHUSIAST NETWORK, INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF EARL NORBERT GARRETT IV’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF RULING AS TO DEFENDANT’S GOLDENTREE ASSET MANAGEMENT LP’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION Background Plaintiff Earl Norbert Garrett IV (“Garrett”) filed this action on March 27, 2020 against various defendants. Defendant GoldenTree Asset Management LP (“GoldenTree”) moved to quash service of the summons and the Complaint on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MAXIMINO SOTO VS DE ROBLIN, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION;, ET AL.

In March 2003, Pacific Coast appeared specially and moved to quash service of Hawkins's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, on the ground that the summons and complaint fail to designate Pacific Coast as a defendant, and the summons purportedly served on Pacific Coast makes no indication that it had been served under a fictitious name, as required by Code [*1501] of Civil Procedure section 474.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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. (Motion), filed on 5-26-20 under ROA No. 41. During the hearing, on 8-11-20, Plaintiffs made a verbal motion to continue the hearing to conduct further jurisdictional discovery. (8-11-20 Minute Order.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

CHARLIE FAGAN VS JANAKA N. DESILVA, ET AL.

Specially Appearing Defendant William Slater Vincent (“Vincent”) moves to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction. Motion to Quash Legal Standard: Personal Jurisdiction 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. (CCP § 418.10(a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

MORRISON EXPRESS CORPORATION VS SPECIALTY PROCESSING, LLC

“When a defendant moves the trial court to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the initial burden of proving that sufficient contacts exist between the defendant and California to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction.” Malone v. Equitas Reinsurance Ltd. (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 1430, 1435-1436 (citation omitted).

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BELCHER, ET AL. V. DAKOTA NOTE LLC, ET AL.

Kenoyer’s motion to quash based on a lack of personal jurisdiction Under California’s long-arm statute, courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresidents “on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10.) California courts may assume jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction fair.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

ROBERT AMES VS JOHNSON CONTROLS INC ET AL

. § 418.10(e)(3), by its conduct, Defendant has waived any issues pertaining to lack of personal jurisdiction and service of process in this action. The motion to quash service of summons is denied. Motion for Reclassification Defendant moves for an order reclassifying this action to limited civil jurisdiction. In his untimely opposition, Plaintiff raises issues pertaining to the status of Defendant as a party in this action which the court shall address first.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

GABRIEL RAMIREZ VS GET-THIN TREATMENTS INC

CASE NO: BC715953 [TENTATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. January 15, 2021 Background Plaintiff Gabriel Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Get-Thin Treatments, Inc. (“Get-Thin”) and Does 1 to 40 for negligence and products liability.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JOHN BIRKE VS LOWES HOME CENTERS, LLC, A NORTH CAROLINA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

(See Ellison’s RJN, Ex.C) Such motion was brought simultaneously with Ellison’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Ellison’s RJN, Ex.D). Pursuant to CCP 418.10(e), a defendant may make a motion to quash and simultaneously answer, demur, or move to strike the complaint without such action being deemed a general appearance. See CCP 418.10(e)(1).

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS SLB CORPORATION INDIVIDUALLY, ET AL.

“A trial court has the discretion to continue the hearing on a motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction to allow the plaintiff to conduct discovery on jurisdictional issues.” (HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal. App. 4th 1160, 1173.) Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion is continued so that Plaintiff may conduct jurisdictional discovery.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the initial burden of proof: Where a nonresident defendant challenges jurisdiction by way of a motion to quash, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction. (Citations omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the initial burden of proof: Where a nonresident defendant challenges jurisdiction by way of a motion to quash, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction. (Citations omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

MARTIRO HERNANDEZ VS ZAVERI FAMILY TRUST, ET AL.

Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198, 210 [“A defendant submits to the court's jurisdiction by making a general appearance in an action and thereby waives the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.”].) Therefore, Han’s motion to strike is denied. Moving Defendant is ordered to file and serve an Answer within 30 days and is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

SOFIA VERGARA VS NICHOLAS LOEB ET AL

Before the court made a determination on the enforceability of the Form Directive, Louisiana I was dismissed with prejudice on October 4, 2017 for lack of personal jurisdiction over Vergara. On January 9, 2019 another lawsuit was filed in a federal district court in Louisiana, naming Loeb and both the Embryos as petitioners (“Louisiana Action II”). Louisiana Action II did not mention the directive, but alleged that the embryos were living children. Loeb sought sole and full custody of them.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

ONTIUM CORP. VS PHOENIX INVENTORS

The Motion to Quash Service for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction brought by defendant Phoenix Investors, LLC is GRANTED. This is a business dispute between two entities for the design of, and later for the assembly of, a custom off-road pop-up camping trailer. The company purchasing these services was plaintiff Ontium Corp., LLC (Plaintiff or Ontium). The company providing these services was defendant Phoenix Investors, LLC (Defendant or Phoenix).

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SHAHLA BROOMAND TEHRANI VS REZA POUR ET AL

DISCUSSION As to the first COA for independent action in equity to set aside and vacate judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs are collaterally estopped from raising the same arguments they did in prior motions. Specifically, Defendant Pour commenced a resulting trust action (LASC Case No.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

TWINMED, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS GREAT LAKES HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC. AN ILLINOIS CORP, ET AL.

.: 20NWCV00390 HEARING: 12/22/2020 JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES #8 TENTATIVE ORDER Specially Appearing Defendants GREAT LAKES HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC. and RIVER NORTH OF BRADLEY HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC’s Joint unopposed Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is GRANTED. Moving Party(s) to give notice. No Opposition(s) filed as of December 18, 2020. The unopposed motion to quash is granted.

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FARIBA ZADEH VS HEAVY TRANSPORT, INC., ET AL.

There is no indication in the notice that this motion to dismiss is also based on the Court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendant Fairbairn. Thus, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1204, subdivision (a)(1) has not been satisfied and the Court does not consider the lack of personal jurisdiction argument. Moreover, even if considered, there is no evidence provided showing Defendant Fairbairn does not have minimum contacts with California.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

DAMON DASH VS TOPSON DOWNS OF CALIFORNIA, INC, 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

    Dec 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

TWINMED LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS GARDENDALE SNF, LLC DBA GARDENDALE REHABILITATION & NURSING CENTER , A NEW JERSEY LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Lack of personal jurisdiction renders a judgment (or default) void, and the default may be directly challenged at any time…. [¶] When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the initial burden of ‘demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction.’ [Cite.]” (Strathvale Holdings v. E.B.H. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1250.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

    Dec 17, 2020

IICOMBINED CO., LTD. VS MALIK YUSEF, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

The Court is empowered to dismiss a complaint where there is a lack of personal jurisdiction over a defendant. (Roy v. Superior Court (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 337.) The Court GRANTS the motion to quash and dismisses the complaint against Moving Defendants only with prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

J'AIME SIRGANY VS UNITED HEALTH SERVICES INC

RELIEF REQUESTED: Universal makes a special appearance to move for an order quashing the service of summons and complaint served by Plaintiff on Universal for lack of personal jurisdiction. BHC moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to Request for Production, Set One. BHC further moves for associated issue preclusion sanctions and monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,200 against Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MOHAMED ABDELBARRY VS ESTELLE & KENNEDY, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants negligently failed to recognize that he could have filed a successful motion to quash based on lack of personal jurisdiction in the underlying breach of contract action against him. Defendants demur to the complaint. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants’ demurrer to the complaint is OVERRULED. Defendants are to file an Answer within 21 days. DISCUSSION: Demurrer Meet and Confer The Declaration of Attorney Jordan G.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD V. SOON, ET AL.

Discussion 17 Specially appearing cross-defendants Lim Jit Ming aka Bryan Lim and Jonathan Michael 18 Chee bring a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction. Lim is the Chief Executive 19 Officer for SinCo and Chee is the Chief Operating Officer (Declaration of Lim Jit Ming in 20 Support of Specially Appearing Defendants’ Motion to Quash for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, 21 ¶ 3; Declaration of Jonathan M.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 45     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.