Preview
XY
x
0 OO WA A RB WwW
Peter
IAA BF BN SB DS
18
|| COMPANY; MARINER HEALTH CARE, ).
| DOES 1-160.
e @
p O Ly zi
One Pointe Drive, Suite 300
Brea, California 92821
Ph: Gig seqag)
Fax: (714) 364-4001
Attorneys
SPECIALLY APPEARING FOR
MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
EE. JOHNSON, byand: sheovgh bis 2 Case No.: MSC15-00272
Soe: Velie B
A, Bd i andi dividually,
}. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO:
Sr, indivi ually,
QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR
) LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY
MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC.
OF-/0 Is
DATE s
TIME: 208 “4
DEPT: 9
ETHCARE.CENTER: MARINER
HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT
INC. FAS, LLC.; REMY RHODES; and” $ By |
4. JUDGE: Judy Craddick ¥ Fax
Complaint filed February 9, 2015
ot
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT on_77-/2 ~ 2015 t__?’ D2. am.,|
or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department "9" of the above-captioned |.
court, located at 725 Court Street, Martinez, CA 94553, Defendant, MARINER HEALTH
A
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION BY MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC.pete
CO XI AA BF YWNH ES
Hack of personal jurisdiction. Mariner Health Care, Inc.’s Motion is based on this. notice, the
|| may be presented at the hearing on this matter.
|| Dated: April 13, 2015 GIovs
Cm WN DN HN BF WN
CARE, INC. will move this Court for an order quashing Plaintiffs’ service of its summons for
accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the declaration of Kenneth Tabler, the
documents and evidence on file herein, and upon such other oral and documentary evidence as
_AleXander F. Giovamniello
Thomas C. Swann
Attorneys SPECIALLY APPEARING FOR.
ER HEALTH CARE, INC.
ii
nr nena ener nanenrnetneeeenil
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION. TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION BY MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC. .Cm NAO MH BH NYE
RNR YR KR NN KY Dow we ee Oe RR oe
eI A A BF BON SB SFO eARA AE HN SE S
| nursing facility owned and operated by Grancare, LLC. In so doing, Plaintiffs identify multiple
|| Health Care, Inc.; FAS, LLC and Remy Rhodes. Mariner Health Car
e @
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1. JINERODUCTION:
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims arising out of the care and treatment Willie
Johnson. (hereinafter “Decedent”) received while a patient at Vale Healthcare Center, a skilled
Defendants to include Grancare, LLC, Mariner Health Care Management Company, Mariner
appearing now moves this Court to quash Service of the Summons and Complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction. ‘
Mariner Health Care, Inc. is a holding company incorporated in the State of Delaware,
with its principle place of business in the State of Georgia. (Tabler Dec. J 5) Mariner Health
Care, Inc. does not own any property nor have any employees within the State of California.
(Tabler Dec. { 6) Mariner Health Care, Inc. is not in the business of providing healthcare
services to any individual, and as a result, it does not own or operate any skilled nursing facility
within the State of California (Tabler Dec. 7 7):
Mariner Health Care, Inc. has never maintained an office in California. It does not own ,
or possess property, or hold any mortgages or liens within the State of California. Moreover,
Mariner Health Care, Inc. does not maintain any bank accounts at any bank or depository, or
pay taxes within California. (Tabler Dec. { 8)
Mariner Health Care, Inc. is not and has never been, registered to do business within the :
State of California, and does not have an agent for service of process within California. Indeed,
Plaintiffs served the instant Summons and Complaint upon its registered process agent CT |
Corporation in Wilmington, Delaware. (Tabler Dec. | 9) Mariner Health Care, Inc. is a separate
legal entity from Grancare, LLC and has never held the operating license to the subject facility,
‘Vale Healthcare Center. (Tabler Dec. J 10)
Mariner Health Care, Inc. has not consented to jurisdiction in the State of California, nor |
has it made a general appearance in this action. (Tabler Dec. 7 11)
Ut
1
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY MARINER ,
HEALTH CARE, INC.Cm IQA WR WD
‘|to or makes a general appearance in the action. See Bi i
U.S. 604; see also Schlessinger -v.. Héllanid Amieriva, ‘N.V., (2004) 120 Cal 4" 552. Under}
l exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
«|| App. 4th 70, 77; } Muglde y.:Superion, Court, (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 218, 228; West. Corp. Yi
| Superior Court, (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1167, 1172. Accordingly, Plaintiffs must make a|
the summons pursuant to Code of Civil Proogdure §418.10 for lack of personal jurisdiction.
2. THIS COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO QUASH SERVICE Ol" SUMMONS ROR
LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION,
Gode of Civil Procedure $418.10 provides:
A defendant ... may serve.and file a notice of motion for one or more of the
following purposes:
(1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the
court over him or her.
3. CALIFORNIA. DOES ..NOT.
MARINER BEALT
Traditionally, a California Court may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant if the |
‘|| defendant is: 1) personally served while in the state; 2) is domiciled in the state; or 3) consents |
i vs Supefior Court, (1990) 495
California’s long-arm statute, a California Court may also exercise personal jurisdiction over a
|. defendant on any basis that is not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United
| States. Godle:ot Civil Procedure §410.10; Thomsen v. Anderson, (2003) 113 Cal. App. 4th 258.
Moreover, under California law, it is Plaintiffs’ borden to establish the court can
prima facie showing, based upon admissible evidence, that this Court has personal jurisdiction
over Mariner Health Care, Inc. See Judd ¥. Superic# Court, (1976) 60 Cal. App. 3d 38,
Plaintiffs cannot meet this burden.
A. Plaintiffs are Unable to Establish any Traditional Basis for Jurisdiction.
First, Plaintiffs did not personally serve Mariner Health Care, Inc. within the State of
‘California. Instead, Plaintiffs served Mariner Health Care, Inc. with the instant Summons and
Complaint through CT Corporation in Wilmington Delaware. (Tabler Dec. 19)
2
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY MARINER,
HEALTH CARE, INC.
As a result of the above, Mariner Health Care, Inc. moves this Court to quash service of |
VE. PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER |
potion Gouri, (1998) 68 Cal. |a
Yb N YY PN YN YN VY —_ _
2 IRR HSKRH FS CeRBUADADESRSEAS
LC mn nm BF wN
Second, Mariner Health Care, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware, with its principle place |,
of business in the State of Georgia. (Tabler Dec. ] 5). Therefore, Mariner Health Care, Inc. is
not domiciled within the State of California.
Third, Mariner Health Care, Inc. has neither consented to jurisdiction, nor has it made a |:
general appearance in this action. (Tabler Dec. { 11) Asa result of the above, in order to confer’
jurisdiction over this Defendant, Plaintiffs must establish that Mariner Health Care, Inc. has |
sufficient minimum contacts with the State of California that it voluntarily availed itself to |
jurisdiction in this state.
4, MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC. DO NOT. HAVE SUFFICIE)
‘CONTACT. 'S WITH CALIFORNIA,
Under California’s long-arm statute, California courts may exercise jurisdiction over
nonresidents “on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United
States.” “Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10; Thothson v. Avdsisif, (2003) 113 Cal. App. 4th
258. In other words, Section 410.10 “manifests an intent to exercise the broadest possible :
jurisdiction, limited only by constitutional considerations." Id. at 266.
The Federal Constitution permits a state to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident
|{defendant if the defendant has sufficient "minimum contacts" with the forum such that
f “maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” |
Intexnalional Shoe-Co.-v, Washington, (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316. "The substantial connection,
between the defendant and the forum state necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must
come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum state. Asahi
| Metal Industry.Co..v. Stiperior Court, (1987) 480 U.S. 102, 112.
In California, two forms of personal jurisdiction are recognized, general and specific.
Yons; Cotipatiles, Tic. v. Seabest Fodds Ine. (1996) 14 Cal 4th 434, 445. Plaintiffs are unable
to establish either form.
Mt
MW
it
3
reneacereroneennerpatitteinentmnsamennrssitete
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY MARINER
HEALTH CARE, INC.Cm NY DAH Bw DY we
Ny oN YN WYNN WN be i bth
BRR RERESRREBEEREDAAEBE ES
A. Mariner Health Care, Inc. has Insofficient Contacts with California to be
Subject te General Jurisdiction.
General jurisdiction applies where the defendant's contacts are substantial, continuous,
and systematic. ‘Perkiris -v: ‘Beriguiat Mining Co. (1952) 342 U.S. 437, 445-446. In that
situation, the cause of action need not be related to the defendant's contacts. Vons, supra, 14 L
Cal. 4th at 445, "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." Id. at 446. As held by
the Court in:Goodyedr Dunlop ‘Tires Operations, 'S.A..v. Brown, (2011) 131 8. Ct, 2846, 2854,
‘the inquiry is not whether a foreign corporation’s in-forum contacts can be said to be in some
so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.’ Id. at
2854. A corporation that operates in many places can scarcely be deemed at home in all of
them,” lest “at home” become “synonymous with ‘doing business’ tests framed before specific
jurisdiction evolved in the United States.” (Id. at p. 2854, fn. 20.)
|| sufficient contacts with California. In fact, Mariner Health Care, Inc. is incorporated in the
State of Delaware, with its principle place of business in the State of Georgia. (Tabler Dec. 95)
within the State of California. (Tabler Dec. [J 5-7)
|| possess property, or hold any mortgages or liens within the State of California. Moreover,
! Mariner Health Care, Inc. does not maintain any bank accounts at any bank or depository, or
pay taxes within California. (Tabler Dec. 18)
|| State of California, and does not have an agent for service of process within California. |,
Although Plaintiffs purportedly served Mariner Health Care, Inc. with service of process
through CT Corporation, such service occurred in Wilmington, Delaware. (Tabler Dec. 79)
Finally, at no time has Mariner Health Care, Inc. ever held the operating license of the
4
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY MARINER,
HEALTH CARE, INC.
.sense ‘continuous and systematic,’ it is whether that corporation’s ‘affiliations with the State are
In the instant matter, Plaintiffs are unable to establish that Mariner Health Care, Inc. has |
Mariner Health Care, Inc. doesnot transact or participate in any business, and has no employees
Mariner Health Care, Inc. has never maintained an office in California, does not own or
Mariner Health Care, Inc. is not and has never been, registered to do business within the |'2S mY HA HA PR WN
ae
oN Aw RB BW Ne S
‘|| executive control over its subsidiary. Instead, Plaintiff must establish that the parent overtook H
|| the subsidiary’s day-to-day operations. VirtualMagic Asia, Inc. Fil-Gartoons, supra, at 244..).
| In order to confer jurisdiction over a parent corporation, the parent must exert a sufficiently high,
|| subsidiary in California; Plaintiffs must show that Mariner Health Care, Inc. either itself had
' sufficient contacts within the state, or it had such a high degree of control over its subsidiary
‘| MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY MARINER
subject skilled nursing facility, Vale Healthcare Center, or any other skilled nursing facility }
within the State of California. (Tabler Dec. J7)
company of Grancare, LLC, and therefore should be subject to the jurisdiction of California due
‘to this relationship. Not only is Mariner Health Care, Inc. not a direct parent to Grancare, LLC,
jurisdiction over the parent corporation. Senora ‘Dismiond Corp.v, Sipsiior Court (2000) 83
Cal.App.4th. 523, YirnalMagic Asia, ‘Ino: v. Fil:Gartoons, Ine. (2002) 99 Cal-App.4th 228;
‘Court, (2002) 104 Cal. App. 4th 1080, 1087;
VI. Tho.%. Superior
It is insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction merely because a parent corporation has }
degree of control over its subsidiary. DVI, lic. v. Superior Court, ‘t, supra, at 1087. Jurisdiction
over a parent corporation may be exercised in very limited circumstances. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs must do more than show that Mariner Health Care, Inc. is the parent company of a
that it overtook its day-to-day operations. Plaintiffs cannot meet this burden. Of course, this
|Court should grant Mariner Healthcare, Inc.’s Request for Judicial Notice wherein the |
California Department of Public Health has recognized that the owner and operator of Vale
Healthcare Center is Grancare, LLC. and not Mariner Healthcare, Inc. :
B. This Court Lacks Specific Jurisdiction over Mariner Health Care, Inc.
If the nonresident defendant does not have substantial and systematic contacts with the
forum state, the defendant may be subject to specific jurisdiction if (1) "the defendant has
purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits with respect to the matter in
controversy, (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of defendant's contacts with the
forum, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.”
HEALTH CARE, INC.
We suspect Plaintiffs will attempt to argue Mariner Health Care, Inc. is the parent
but California Courts have repeatedly held that such a relationship is insufficient to confer |w ied tm om
BRRRSREBBRESSRSRIREAREEESES
‘|| only satisfied when the defendant purposefully and voluntarily directs its activities toward the I
|) benefit from its activities in the forum, creates a substantial connection with the forum,
eC ONY DU PF WN
| obligations between itself and residents of the forum.” Id. at 1063. Under this standard, an out- |
i! subject to suit there, and can act to alleviate the risk of burdensome litigation.” Id. at 1063.
| California such that it would reasonably expect to be hauled into court there. Quite simply,
}| California.
availed itself to the benefits and privileges of the laws of the State of California, Plaintiffs are |
|| According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs claim that Vale Healthcare Center failed to provide
‘||: adequate staffing and safeguard Willie Johnsons rights such that he suffered from neglect.
|| Mariner Health Care, Inc., however, is not the licensee of Vale Healthcare Center, and further
|| related activity Mariner Health Care, Inc. may have purposefully availed itself to. Accordingly, :
‘this Court has an insufficient basis to confer personal jurisdiction over Mariner Health Care,’
it;.(2002) 29 Cal. 4th 262, 269.
The purposeful availment inquiry focuses on the defendant's intentions. “This prong is
forum so that it should expect, by virtue of the benefit it receives, to be subject to the court's
defendant “purposefully directs its activities at residents of the forum, purposefully derives.
deliberately has engaged in significant activities within the forum, or has created continuing |
of-state defendant will only be subject to personal jurisdiction if it has clear notice that it is
Mariner Health Care, Inc. has not purposefully availed itself of any benefit of the laws. of
Mariner Health Care, Inc. has done nothing to purposefully avail itself to the jurisdiction of
Even if Plaintiffs can somehow establish that Mariner Health Care, Inc. parca’
still unable to establish that their claims arise out of, or are the result of, forum-related activities. |
does not have any employees at this facility. (Tabler Dec. J7) Further, Mariner Health Care, |
Center. (Tabler Dec. ff] 6, 7 & 12). As such, Plaintiffs’ claims do not arise out of any forum-
Inc.
6
HEALTH CARE, INC.
jurisdiction based on its contacts with the forum." Siioviney ». Hainal's Bntentiinmistit, Hic.,
(2005) 35 Cal. 4th 1054, 1062. Thus, purposeful availment occurs where a nonresident’:
Inc. does not participate in the management. of the day-to-day operations of Vale Healthcare ,
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE.OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY MARINER |”YNNN YN NNN S| B&B we Be Be ee ee
erRIA AKRON KF SEM AAAR SHAS
‘conducts business within the State of California is insufficient to confer jurisdiction. Sonora |,
; within a State that it does not conduct business in. Therefore, this Court should quash service of |
Ce WH wW BR WN
summons. pursuant to Gotlé'or Civil Prddeduie: § 418.10 for lack of personal jurisdiction.
9 se a,
As noted above, the fact Mariner Health Care, Inc. is. a parent company of an entity that |
ond. Corp.
Bi Cartoons, Inc., (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 228, 244; DY1. Ine, v. Sui
‘Cal. App. 4th 1080, 1087.
: As such, it would be unjust to subject Mariner Health Care, Inc. to defend this lawsuit
yy Snpertior: Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 540; Virtual Magi¢ Asia, The. x: |
ioe-Couutt, (2002) 104
the summons pursuant to ‘Gode-of Civil Procedure § 418.10 for lack of personal jurisdiction.
5. CONCLUSION, :
Based on the. foregoing points and authorities, this Court should quash service of the ;
Dated: April 13, 2015 GIOVANNIELLO.LAW"4
Alekavidet F. Giovanniello—
Thomas C. Swann
Attorneys for:
MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC.
By:
7
"MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY MARINER |
HEALTH CARE, INC. PNNN RN YN Fe Be Be oe moe
PBNRRBRBBNRBVBSCRSEVIAERDEBBEB
‘|| eighteen years. and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is One Pointe
| Drive, Suite 300, Brea, California 92821 }
||PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC., by placing the true
oem NAH BP wD
Ho )
€)
||( ) BY FAX TRANSMISSION: I faxed said document(s) to the person(s) indicated on the
|(XX) STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under {é ‘ ‘of California that
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the county of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of.
On April 15, 2015, I served the foregoing document(s) described as, NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF |
copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:
James M. Morgan
Richard Ingle
LANZONE MORGAN, LLP
5001 Airport Plaza Drive, Suite 210
Long Beach, California 90815
Tel: (562) 596-1700
Fax: (562) 596-0011
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
with the business practice for collection and
ith the United States Postal Service. Under
: for collection and .2i ith.
(&X) BY U.S. MAIL: I am “teadily:fani
processing of correspondence for:
that practice the envelope was
United States Postal Service on ti
;omng person Lot youriger |
d six'in the-eveniigs =]
below service list; as a courtesy copy;
( ) BY ELECTRONIC SERWICE; I caused the document(s) to be sent to the person(s) at
the electronic notification addresses listed on the service list. I
Executed on April 15, 2015, at Brea, California.
the foregoing is true and correct.
Preview
XY x 0 OO WA A RB WwW Peter IAA BF BN SB DS 18 || COMPANY; MARINER HEALTH CARE, ). | DOES 1-160. e @ p O Ly zi One Pointe Drive, Suite 300 Brea, California 92821 Ph: Gig seqag) Fax: (714) 364-4001 Attorneys SPECIALLY APPEARING FOR MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA EE. JOHNSON, byand: sheovgh bis 2 Case No.: MSC15-00272 Soe: Velie B A, Bd i andi dividually, }. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO: Sr, indivi ually, QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR ) LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC. OF-/0 Is DATE s TIME: 208 “4 DEPT: 9 ETHCARE.CENTER: MARINER HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT INC. FAS, LLC.; REMY RHODES; and” $ By | 4. JUDGE: Judy Craddick ¥ Fax Complaint filed February 9, 2015 ot TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT on_77-/2 ~ 2015 t__?’ D2. am.,| or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department "9" of the above-captioned |. court, located at 725 Court Street, Martinez, CA 94553, Defendant, MARINER HEALTH A NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC.pete CO XI AA BF YWNH ES Hack of personal jurisdiction. Mariner Health Care, Inc.’s Motion is based on this. notice, the || may be presented at the hearing on this matter. || Dated: April 13, 2015 GIovs Cm WN DN HN BF WN CARE, INC. will move this Court for an order quashing Plaintiffs’ service of its summons for accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the declaration of Kenneth Tabler, the documents and evidence on file herein, and upon such other oral and documentary evidence as _AleXander F. Giovamniello Thomas C. Swann Attorneys SPECIALLY APPEARING FOR. ER HEALTH CARE, INC. ii nr nena ener nanenrnetneeeenil NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION. TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC. .Cm NAO MH BH NYE RNR YR KR NN KY Dow we ee Oe RR oe eI A A BF BON SB SFO eARA AE HN SE S | nursing facility owned and operated by Grancare, LLC. In so doing, Plaintiffs identify multiple || Health Care, Inc.; FAS, LLC and Remy Rhodes. Mariner Health Car e @ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1. JINERODUCTION: In their Complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims arising out of the care and treatment Willie Johnson. (hereinafter “Decedent”) received while a patient at Vale Healthcare Center, a skilled Defendants to include Grancare, LLC, Mariner Health Care Management Company, Mariner appearing now moves this Court to quash Service of the Summons and Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. ‘ Mariner Health Care, Inc. is a holding company incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its principle place of business in the State of Georgia. (Tabler Dec. J 5) Mariner Health Care, Inc. does not own any property nor have any employees within the State of California. (Tabler Dec. { 6) Mariner Health Care, Inc. is not in the business of providing healthcare services to any individual, and as a result, it does not own or operate any skilled nursing facility within the State of California (Tabler Dec. 7 7): Mariner Health Care, Inc. has never maintained an office in California. It does not own , or possess property, or hold any mortgages or liens within the State of California. Moreover, Mariner Health Care, Inc. does not maintain any bank accounts at any bank or depository, or pay taxes within California. (Tabler Dec. { 8) Mariner Health Care, Inc. is not and has never been, registered to do business within the : State of California, and does not have an agent for service of process within California. Indeed, Plaintiffs served the instant Summons and Complaint upon its registered process agent CT | Corporation in Wilmington, Delaware. (Tabler Dec. | 9) Mariner Health Care, Inc. is a separate legal entity from Grancare, LLC and has never held the operating license to the subject facility, ‘Vale Healthcare Center. (Tabler Dec. J 10) Mariner Health Care, Inc. has not consented to jurisdiction in the State of California, nor | has it made a general appearance in this action. (Tabler Dec. 7 11) Ut 1 MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY MARINER , HEALTH CARE, INC.Cm IQA WR WD ‘|to or makes a general appearance in the action. See Bi i U.S. 604; see also Schlessinger -v.. Héllanid Amieriva, ‘N.V., (2004) 120 Cal 4" 552. Under} l exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. «|| App. 4th 70, 77; } Muglde y.:Superion, Court, (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 218, 228; West. Corp. Yi | Superior Court, (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1167, 1172. Accordingly, Plaintiffs must make a| the summons pursuant to Code of Civil Proogdure §418.10 for lack of personal jurisdiction. 2. THIS COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO QUASH SERVICE Ol" SUMMONS ROR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, Gode of Civil Procedure $418.10 provides: A defendant ... may serve.and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. 3. CALIFORNIA. DOES ..NOT. MARINER BEALT Traditionally, a California Court may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant if the | ‘|| defendant is: 1) personally served while in the state; 2) is domiciled in the state; or 3) consents | i vs Supefior Court, (1990) 495 California’s long-arm statute, a California Court may also exercise personal jurisdiction over a |. defendant on any basis that is not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United | States. Godle:ot Civil Procedure §410.10; Thomsen v. Anderson, (2003) 113 Cal. App. 4th 258. Moreover, under California law, it is Plaintiffs’ borden to establish the court can prima facie showing, based upon admissible evidence, that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Mariner Health Care, Inc. See Judd ¥. Superic# Court, (1976) 60 Cal. App. 3d 38, Plaintiffs cannot meet this burden. A. Plaintiffs are Unable to Establish any Traditional Basis for Jurisdiction. First, Plaintiffs did not personally serve Mariner Health Care, Inc. within the State of ‘California. Instead, Plaintiffs served Mariner Health Care, Inc. with the instant Summons and Complaint through CT Corporation in Wilmington Delaware. (Tabler Dec. 19) 2 MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY MARINER, HEALTH CARE, INC. As a result of the above, Mariner Health Care, Inc. moves this Court to quash service of | VE. PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER | potion Gouri, (1998) 68 Cal. |a Yb N YY PN YN YN VY —_ _ 2 IRR HSKRH FS CeRBUADADESRSEAS LC mn nm BF wN Second, Mariner Health Care, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware, with its principle place |, of business in the State of Georgia. (Tabler Dec. ] 5). Therefore, Mariner Health Care, Inc. is not domiciled within the State of California. Third, Mariner Health Care, Inc. has neither consented to jurisdiction, nor has it made a |: general appearance in this action. (Tabler Dec. { 11) Asa result of the above, in order to confer’ jurisdiction over this Defendant, Plaintiffs must establish that Mariner Health Care, Inc. has | sufficient minimum contacts with the State of California that it voluntarily availed itself to | jurisdiction in this state. 4, MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC. DO NOT. HAVE SUFFICIE) ‘CONTACT. 'S WITH CALIFORNIA, Under California’s long-arm statute, California courts may exercise jurisdiction over nonresidents “on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” “Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10; Thothson v. Avdsisif, (2003) 113 Cal. App. 4th 258. In other words, Section 410.10 “manifests an intent to exercise the broadest possible : jurisdiction, limited only by constitutional considerations." Id. at 266. The Federal Constitution permits a state to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident |{defendant if the defendant has sufficient "minimum contacts" with the forum such that f “maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” | Intexnalional Shoe-Co.-v, Washington, (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316. "The substantial connection, between the defendant and the forum state necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum state. Asahi | Metal Industry.Co..v. Stiperior Court, (1987) 480 U.S. 102, 112. In California, two forms of personal jurisdiction are recognized, general and specific. Yons; Cotipatiles, Tic. v. Seabest Fodds Ine. (1996) 14 Cal 4th 434, 445. Plaintiffs are unable to establish either form. Mt MW it 3 reneacereroneennerpatitteinentmnsamennrssitete MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC.Cm NY DAH Bw DY we Ny oN YN WYNN WN be i bth BRR RERESRREBEEREDAAEBE ES A. Mariner Health Care, Inc. has Insofficient Contacts with California to be Subject te General Jurisdiction. General jurisdiction applies where the defendant's contacts are substantial, continuous, and systematic. ‘Perkiris -v: ‘Beriguiat Mining Co. (1952) 342 U.S. 437, 445-446. In that situation, the cause of action need not be related to the defendant's contacts. Vons, supra, 14 L Cal. 4th at 445, "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." Id. at 446. As held by the Court in:Goodyedr Dunlop ‘Tires Operations, 'S.A..v. Brown, (2011) 131 8. Ct, 2846, 2854, ‘the inquiry is not whether a foreign corporation’s in-forum contacts can be said to be in some so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.’ Id. at 2854. A corporation that operates in many places can scarcely be deemed at home in all of them,” lest “at home” become “synonymous with ‘doing business’ tests framed before specific jurisdiction evolved in the United States.” (Id. at p. 2854, fn. 20.) || sufficient contacts with California. In fact, Mariner Health Care, Inc. is incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its principle place of business in the State of Georgia. (Tabler Dec. 95) within the State of California. (Tabler Dec. [J 5-7) || possess property, or hold any mortgages or liens within the State of California. Moreover, ! Mariner Health Care, Inc. does not maintain any bank accounts at any bank or depository, or pay taxes within California. (Tabler Dec. 18) || State of California, and does not have an agent for service of process within California. |, Although Plaintiffs purportedly served Mariner Health Care, Inc. with service of process through CT Corporation, such service occurred in Wilmington, Delaware. (Tabler Dec. 79) Finally, at no time has Mariner Health Care, Inc. ever held the operating license of the 4 MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY MARINER, HEALTH CARE, INC. .sense ‘continuous and systematic,’ it is whether that corporation’s ‘affiliations with the State are In the instant matter, Plaintiffs are unable to establish that Mariner Health Care, Inc. has | Mariner Health Care, Inc. doesnot transact or participate in any business, and has no employees Mariner Health Care, Inc. has never maintained an office in California, does not own or Mariner Health Care, Inc. is not and has never been, registered to do business within the |'2S mY HA HA PR WN ae oN Aw RB BW Ne S ‘|| executive control over its subsidiary. Instead, Plaintiff must establish that the parent overtook H || the subsidiary’s day-to-day operations. VirtualMagic Asia, Inc. Fil-Gartoons, supra, at 244..). | In order to confer jurisdiction over a parent corporation, the parent must exert a sufficiently high, || subsidiary in California; Plaintiffs must show that Mariner Health Care, Inc. either itself had ' sufficient contacts within the state, or it had such a high degree of control over its subsidiary ‘| MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY MARINER subject skilled nursing facility, Vale Healthcare Center, or any other skilled nursing facility } within the State of California. (Tabler Dec. J7) company of Grancare, LLC, and therefore should be subject to the jurisdiction of California due ‘to this relationship. Not only is Mariner Health Care, Inc. not a direct parent to Grancare, LLC, jurisdiction over the parent corporation. Senora ‘Dismiond Corp.v, Sipsiior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th. 523, YirnalMagic Asia, ‘Ino: v. Fil:Gartoons, Ine. (2002) 99 Cal-App.4th 228; ‘Court, (2002) 104 Cal. App. 4th 1080, 1087; VI. Tho.%. Superior It is insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction merely because a parent corporation has } degree of control over its subsidiary. DVI, lic. v. Superior Court, ‘t, supra, at 1087. Jurisdiction over a parent corporation may be exercised in very limited circumstances. Accordingly, Plaintiffs must do more than show that Mariner Health Care, Inc. is the parent company of a that it overtook its day-to-day operations. Plaintiffs cannot meet this burden. Of course, this |Court should grant Mariner Healthcare, Inc.’s Request for Judicial Notice wherein the | California Department of Public Health has recognized that the owner and operator of Vale Healthcare Center is Grancare, LLC. and not Mariner Healthcare, Inc. : B. This Court Lacks Specific Jurisdiction over Mariner Health Care, Inc. If the nonresident defendant does not have substantial and systematic contacts with the forum state, the defendant may be subject to specific jurisdiction if (1) "the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits with respect to the matter in controversy, (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of defendant's contacts with the forum, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.” HEALTH CARE, INC. We suspect Plaintiffs will attempt to argue Mariner Health Care, Inc. is the parent but California Courts have repeatedly held that such a relationship is insufficient to confer |w ied tm om BRRRSREBBRESSRSRIREAREEESES ‘|| only satisfied when the defendant purposefully and voluntarily directs its activities toward the I |) benefit from its activities in the forum, creates a substantial connection with the forum, eC ONY DU PF WN | obligations between itself and residents of the forum.” Id. at 1063. Under this standard, an out- | i! subject to suit there, and can act to alleviate the risk of burdensome litigation.” Id. at 1063. | California such that it would reasonably expect to be hauled into court there. Quite simply, }| California. availed itself to the benefits and privileges of the laws of the State of California, Plaintiffs are | || According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs claim that Vale Healthcare Center failed to provide ‘||: adequate staffing and safeguard Willie Johnsons rights such that he suffered from neglect. || Mariner Health Care, Inc., however, is not the licensee of Vale Healthcare Center, and further || related activity Mariner Health Care, Inc. may have purposefully availed itself to. Accordingly, : ‘this Court has an insufficient basis to confer personal jurisdiction over Mariner Health Care,’ it;.(2002) 29 Cal. 4th 262, 269. The purposeful availment inquiry focuses on the defendant's intentions. “This prong is forum so that it should expect, by virtue of the benefit it receives, to be subject to the court's defendant “purposefully directs its activities at residents of the forum, purposefully derives. deliberately has engaged in significant activities within the forum, or has created continuing | of-state defendant will only be subject to personal jurisdiction if it has clear notice that it is Mariner Health Care, Inc. has not purposefully availed itself of any benefit of the laws. of Mariner Health Care, Inc. has done nothing to purposefully avail itself to the jurisdiction of Even if Plaintiffs can somehow establish that Mariner Health Care, Inc. parca’ still unable to establish that their claims arise out of, or are the result of, forum-related activities. | does not have any employees at this facility. (Tabler Dec. J7) Further, Mariner Health Care, | Center. (Tabler Dec. ff] 6, 7 & 12). As such, Plaintiffs’ claims do not arise out of any forum- Inc. 6 HEALTH CARE, INC. jurisdiction based on its contacts with the forum." Siioviney ». Hainal's Bntentiinmistit, Hic., (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 1054, 1062. Thus, purposeful availment occurs where a nonresident’: Inc. does not participate in the management. of the day-to-day operations of Vale Healthcare , MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE.OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY MARINER |”YNNN YN NNN S| B&B we Be Be ee ee erRIA AKRON KF SEM AAAR SHAS ‘conducts business within the State of California is insufficient to confer jurisdiction. Sonora |, ; within a State that it does not conduct business in. Therefore, this Court should quash service of | Ce WH wW BR WN summons. pursuant to Gotlé'or Civil Prddeduie: § 418.10 for lack of personal jurisdiction. 9 se a, As noted above, the fact Mariner Health Care, Inc. is. a parent company of an entity that | ond. Corp. Bi Cartoons, Inc., (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 228, 244; DY1. Ine, v. Sui ‘Cal. App. 4th 1080, 1087. : As such, it would be unjust to subject Mariner Health Care, Inc. to defend this lawsuit yy Snpertior: Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 540; Virtual Magi¢ Asia, The. x: | ioe-Couutt, (2002) 104 the summons pursuant to ‘Gode-of Civil Procedure § 418.10 for lack of personal jurisdiction. 5. CONCLUSION, : Based on the. foregoing points and authorities, this Court should quash service of the ; Dated: April 13, 2015 GIOVANNIELLO.LAW"4 Alekavidet F. Giovanniello— Thomas C. Swann Attorneys for: MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC. By: 7 "MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY MARINER | HEALTH CARE, INC. PNNN RN YN Fe Be Be oe moe PBNRRBRBBNRBVBSCRSEVIAERDEBBEB ‘|| eighteen years. and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is One Pointe | Drive, Suite 300, Brea, California 92821 } ||PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC., by placing the true oem NAH BP wD Ho ) €) ||( ) BY FAX TRANSMISSION: I faxed said document(s) to the person(s) indicated on the |(XX) STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under {é ‘ ‘of California that PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the county of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of. On April 15, 2015, I served the foregoing document(s) described as, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF | copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: James M. Morgan Richard Ingle LANZONE MORGAN, LLP 5001 Airport Plaza Drive, Suite 210 Long Beach, California 90815 Tel: (562) 596-1700 Fax: (562) 596-0011 Attorneys for Plaintiffs with the business practice for collection and ith the United States Postal Service. Under : for collection and .2i ith. (&X) BY U.S. MAIL: I am “teadily:fani processing of correspondence for: that practice the envelope was United States Postal Service on ti ;omng person Lot youriger | d six'in the-eveniigs =] below service list; as a courtesy copy; ( ) BY ELECTRONIC SERWICE; I caused the document(s) to be sent to the person(s) at the electronic notification addresses listed on the service list. I Executed on April 15, 2015, at Brea, California. the foregoing is true and correct.