Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 24STCV03572, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV03572    Hearing Date: May 9, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Hearing Date:             May 9, 2024

Moving Party:             Defendant Brian Yahn.

Responding Party:       Plaintiff Charles Varnado III

Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and/or Stay or Dismiss for Inconvenient Forum

The court has considered the moving, opposition, reply papers.

The court DENIES Special Appearing Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons and dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and/or stay or dismiss for inconvenient forum. Defendant is ordered to file his Answer within twenty (20) days from the issuance of this order.

Background

On February 13, 2024, plaintiff Charles Varnado III (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Brian Yahn (“Defendant”), alleging causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Unjust Enrichment; and (3) Promissory Estoppel. The Complaint arises out of Defendants’ alleged failure to perform under several of the parties’ agreements by evicting Plaintiff, failing to take care of the parties’ dog Pinocchio, and providing Plaintiff his alleged half interest in the parties’ Chicago Property. (Compl., ¶¶ 50, 63, 84.) The parties were previously in a nonmarital, romantic cohabitation which ended in or around September 2022. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5.)

On April 11, 2024, defendant filed this motion to quash service of summons and dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and/or stay or dismiss for inconvenient forum. Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 26, 2024. Defendant did not file in reply on February.

///

///

Legal Standard

“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; (2) To stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum. . . .” (CCP § 418.10(a).) “A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” (CCP § 410.10.) “The exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant comports with these Constitutions ‘if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” ’ ” (Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1061, citations omitted.) “The concept of minimum contacts also requires states to observe certain territorial limits on their sovereignty. It ‘ensure[s] that the States, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.’ ” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445, citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 292.). “[T]he minimum contacts test asks ‘whether the “quality and nature” of the defendant’s activity is such that it is “reasonable” and “fair” to require him to conduct his defense in that State.’ ” (Snowney, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 1061, citing Kulko v. California Superior Court (1978) 436 U.S. 84, 92.)

“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.) “Once facts showing minimum contacts with the forum state are established, however, it becomes the defendant's burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” (Vons Companies, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at 449, citation omitted.) “Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific.” (Vons Companies, 14 Cal. 4th at 445.)

“When a defendant challenges the court's personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process ‘the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.’ ” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413, citing Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439–1440.) “A party cannot be properly joined unless served with the summons and complaint; notice does not substitute for proper service. Until statutory requirements are satisfied, the court lacks jurisdiction over a defendant.” (Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.)

Discussion

A.     Personal Jurisdiction

Defendant moves for an order to quash the service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant’s motion is based on the grounds that (1) there are insufficient contacts between Defendant and this forum state, and (2) California is not the convenient forum for the action. Defendant alternatively moves for an order staying or dismissing the action based on his second grounds.

Even though a motion to quash service of summons is defendant’s motion, the initial burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that minimum contacts justify the imposition of personal jurisdiction. (Integral Development Corp. v. Weissenbach (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 576, 584.) Under the minimum contacts test, “an essential criterion in all cases is whether the ‘quality and nature’ of the defendant's activity is such that it is ‘reasonable’ and ‘fair’ to require him to conduct his defense in that State.” (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 268-269 [citing Kulko v. California Superior Court (1978) 436 U.S. 84, 92].) 

Defendant presents the following evidence to demonstrate that he lack minimum contacts with California. Defendant moved to Chicago, Illinois, in October 2021, he has lived and resided there continuously ever since. (Declaration of Brian Yahn ¶ 3.) Defendant physically works, is registered to vote, and pays income taxes in Illinois. (Id. ¶¶ 4,6-7.) Since moving to Chicago, Defendant states that he does not conduct business in California nor has he initiated a judicial proceeding in the state. (Id. ¶¶ 16-17.)

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that the court does have personal jurisdiction over the defendant because the defendant is still domiciled in California and defendant was personally served while in California. (Opp’n p. 4-6). Plaintiff submits his own declaration in which he states that defendant was personally served while physically present in California on April 18, 2024. (Plaintiff Decl. ¶ 6; Exh. 2) The attached Proof of Service, labeled as Exhibit 2, additionally contains the declaration of the process server, which confirms that defendant was served on April 18, 2024, after two prior attempts were made on April 16, 2024. (Id.; Exh. 2.) Plaintiff additionally states that during defendant’s acquisition of the property located at 1750 North Wolcott Avenue, #404, Chicago, IL 60622 (“Chicago Property”), defendant declared his Los Angeles address as his primary residence. (Id. ¶ 7; Exh. 3.)

The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the defendant based on his physical presence in the state at the time of service. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that service of summons upon persons voluntarily present in the forum state “suffice[s] to confer jurisdiction, without regard to whether the defendant was only briefly in the State or whether the cause of action was related to his activities there.” (Burnham v. Sup.Ct. (1990) 495 US 604, 612; see also Rockefeller Tech. Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou SinoType Tech. Co., Ltd. (2020) 9 C5th 125, 139.) Here, defendant was physically present in California at the time of service because the proof of service establishes that defendant was personally served in Santa Clara, California. The process server’s declaration states that he confirmed defendant’s identity by photo and that defendant accepted service with direct delivery at 7:21 AM on April 18, 2024. (Id. Exh. 3.) “Evidence Code section 647 provides that a registered process server’s declaration of service establishes a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence of the facts stated in the declaration. [Citation.]” (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390; Evid. Code § 647.) Thus, based on this, the Court does have jurisdiction over the defendant based on his physical presence in California at the time he was served.

B.     Forum Non Conveniens

Defendant alternatively asserts that Illinois rather than California is the proper forum for the matter to be heard. Defendant contends that both parties reside in Illinois, plaintiff’s primary claims and evidence relate to and exist in Illinois, and that plaintiff’s private interest and the public’s interest favor litigation in Illinois. (Mot. p. 7-10.) In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that the Court should allow the litigation to proceed in California.

“Forum Non Conveniens is an equitable doctrine, codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30, under which a trial court has discretion to stay or dismiss a transitory cause of action that it believes may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere.  [Citation.] The inquiry is whether ‘in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state….’ [Citation.]”  (Animal Film, LLC v. D.E.J. Productions, Inc.¿(2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 466, 471.) Defendant bears the burden of proof, meaning defendant must provide the trial court with sufficient evidence to enable it to carry out its weighing and balancing analysis. (National Football League v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2013) 216 CA4th 902, 926-927, 933.) Where plaintiff is a California resident for purposes of forum non conveniens, there is a “strong presumption” in favor of plaintiff's choice of forum. (Id. at 932.)

Here, since plaintiff claims her domicile is in California, there is a strong presumption in favor of plaintiff’s choice. While the litigation involves real property located in Illinois, defendant concedes that the alleged cohabitation and alleged agreements between the parties were initially forged in California. (Mot. p. 8.) The Plaintiff’s opposition indicates that many of the witnesses, including the plaintiff, are in California. (Opp’n. p. 6; see also Plaintiff Decl. ¶ 15.) Since the case arises from a breach of contract claim, arguably the only physical evidence outside of forum is the defendant. Thus, the Court finds California the convenient forum for the parties to litigate the action.

The court, therefore, DENIES the Motion to Quash the Service of Summons and Complaint. The defendant is ordered to file his Answer to the Complaint within twenty (20) days of the court’s order.

It is so ordered.

Dated: May 9, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court