MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS
Set for hearing on Thursday, March 12, 2020, on Line 2, DEFENDANT THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC. MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS
The Court has e-mailed the full tentative ruling to the parties.
Specially appearing defendant The Travelers Companies, Inc. ("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. Ct. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 421, 428-29.) Plaintiffs here fail to provide a competent basis to subject TCI to jurisdiction in California. Plaintiffs do not challenge TCI's argument that it
Hearing Date
March 12, 2020
Department
Civic Center Courthouse Room 302
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS
Set for hearing on Thursday, March 12, 2020, on Line 2, DEFENDANT THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC. MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS
The Court has e-mailed the full tentative ruling to the parties.
Specially appearing defendant The Travelers Companies, Inc. ("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. Ct. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 421, 428-29.) Plaintiffs here fail to provide a competent basis to subject TCI to jurisdiction in California. Plaintiffs do not challenge TCI's argument that it