2018-00230878-CU-BC

Maria Liverett vs. LNH, LLC

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Filed By: Slater, Theodore

Defendants LNH, LLC and Brandi Lyons moved to quash Plaintiff Maria Liverett’s service of the summons and complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction over Defendants or, in the alternative, on the basis of forum non conveniens. Defendants’ motion is ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Counsel for moving party is directed to contact counsel for opposing party forthwith and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the court’s tentative ruling procedure. If counsel for moving part is unable to contact counsel for the opposing party prior to the hearing, counsel for the moving party shall be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event opposing party appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Legal Standard

A California court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is constitutional “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.’” (West Corp. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1171-1172, quoting Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444.)

When a nonresident challenges personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the factual basis justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. ( Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 273.) “The plaintiff must do more than merely allege jurisdictional facts; the plaintiff must provide affidavits or other authenticated documents demonstrating competent evidence of jurisdictional facts.” ( BBA Aviation PLC v. Superior Court (2013) 190 Cal.App.4th 421, 428-429.) Thus, “the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that ‘minimum contacts’ exist between

defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.” (Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710, citing Shearer v. Superior Court (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 424, 430.) “Minimum contacts” means the relationship between the nonresident and the forum state is such that exercise of jurisdiction does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” under the United States Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. (International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316.) Jurisdiction may be general or specific.

General jurisdiction exists over a nonresident defendant when its forum-related activities are “substantial, continuous and systematic.” (Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. (1952) 342 U.S. 437, 446-447.)

Even if a nonresident defendant’s “contacts” are not sufficient to confer general jurisdiction, the defendant may still be subject to jurisdiction on claims related to its activities in the state under a specific jurisdiction analysis. The inquiry for specific jurisdiction focuses on the relationship between the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. (Walden v. Fiore (2014) 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1121.) “A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of [the] defendant’s contacts with the forum; and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with ‘fair play and substantial justice.’” (Pavlovich, 29 Cal.4th at 269, citations omitted.) A party with no physical contacts with California does not defeat jurisdiction where the party commits out-of-state acts intended to cause effects in California, reasonably would cause effects in California, or are “purposefully directed” toward California residents. (Goehring v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 894, 909.) A controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant’s forum contacts as to satisfy the second requirement for the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction if there is “a substantial connection between the forum contacts and the plaintiff’s claim.” (Vons, 14 Cal.4th at 452.) “[W]here a defendant who purposefully has directed his activities at forum residents seeks to defeat jurisdiction, he must present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.” (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 476-477.)

Alternatively, “[f]orum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine invoking the discretionary power of a court to decline to exercise the jurisdiction it has over a transitory cause of action when it believes that the action may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere.” (Stangvik v. Shiley, Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751.) “On a motion for forum non conveniens, the defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of proof.” (Id.) A trial court ruling on a forum non conveniens motion must address two factors: (1) whether an alternative forum exists; and (2) whether the private and public factors weigh in favor of litigation in the alternative forum.” (David v. Medtronic, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 734, 741, citing Stangvik, 54 Cal.3d at 751.)

Analysis

Defendants argue there is no general or specific jurisdiction and, alternatively, this case should be tried in Arizona based on forum non conveniens.

Personal Jurisdiction

In support of Defendants’ jurisdiction argument, Defendants attach the declaration of

Defendant Brandi Lyons, the managing member of Defendant LNH, LLC. (Lyons Decl.

¶ 2.) Defendant Lyons states that LNH has no employees in California, does not have a bank account, office, or mailing address in California, does not own or lease any real property in California, is not registered or otherwise qualified to do business in California, and does not have an agent for service of process in California. (Lyons Decl. ¶ 4.) Ms. Lyons states she does not regularly conduct business in California and that she and LNH do not “have any substantial, continuous, or systematic contact with California.” (Lyons Decl. ¶¶ 6, 11, 12.)

Here, Plaintiff argues she first met Defendant Lyons when she paid approximately $850 to attend a clinic Ms. Lyons held in Novato, California in February 2015 at the Novato Horsemen’s Association. (Liverett Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff later paid approximately $850 to attend another clinic hosted by Defendants in Petaluma, California, where Plaintiff alleges Defendant Lyons “began encouraging [her] to sign up for her Trainer Certification Program.” (Liverett Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff claims Defendant Lyons stated that doing so would allow Plaintiff to be “certified,” as indicated by LNH’s website, and “thereby help [Plaintiff’s] training business.” (Id.) Plaintiff states that Defendant Lyons “also promised that, as a certified trainer, [Plaintiff] would be able to assist [Defendant Lyons] at the clinics she runs, where [Plaintiff] would be introduce[d] to many potential customers in California.” (Id.)

In March 2016, Plaintiff paid approximately $850 to attend another clinic hosted by Defendants in Fort Bragg, California. (Liverett Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff contends that at this training Defendant Lyons convinced her to sign up for Defendants’ Trainer Certification Program and that Plaintiff “would be the only trainer she certified in the state of California, which she said would help [Plaintiff] grow [her] training business.” (Id.)

Plaintiff paid some of the deposits for the clinics through Defendants’ website. (Liverett Decl. ¶ 6.) The Trainer Certification Program cost $20,000 plus costs, which Plaintiff alleges she paid in installments, mostly via credit card from her home in the Sacramento area. (Liverett Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff paid at least one installment in cash to Defendant Lyons in California. (Id.)

On December 28, 2016, Plaintiff received an email from Defendant Lyons and LNH which provided the clinic schedule for Defendant Lyons in 2017. (Liverett Decl. ¶ 8. Exh. B.) The schedule shows Defendant Lyons would be running five clinics and a “symposium” in California in 2017. (Liverett Decl. ¶¶ 8, 9.)

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Lyons asked her on several occasions “to advertise her California events to [Plaintiff’s] students in order to help her sell tickets.” (Liverett Decl. ¶ 10.)

In opposition, Defendant argues on reply that “Defendants offer a niche service and

therefore invite students to attend their Arizona school from all around the
country.” (Reply at 5.) “To identify and attract these students, Defendants showcase
their teaching in states with strong horse culture, including Washington State, New

York, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and California.” (Id.) In other words, Defendants direct
their activities at specific states, including California, to attract potential customers.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s evidence and this statement from Defendants make a sufficient showing to subject Defendants to specific personal jurisdiction in California. (See Pavlovich, 29 Cal.4th at 269.)

Defendants’ attempt to analogize the instant case to Roman v. Liberty University, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 670, is not persuasive. The Roman court found that there was no specific personal jurisdiction in that case because “plaintiff has shown only that Liberty’s recruiter made a single visit to California, and the scholarship agreement and amended scholarship agreement were executed in [California]” and “the nexus between Liberty’s activities in California and the injury plaintiff suffered [in Virginia] is so attenuated as to be virtually nonexistent.” (Id. at 681.) Here, Defendants purposefully solicited clients from California, including Plaintiff. Defendants’ actions were more akin to instances where courts have found there was sufficient contacts to warrant specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant. (See, e.g., Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062-1066 (“Where, as here, ‘[t] he actions taken by’ defendants ‘to solicit business within’ California ‘were clearly purposefully directed toward residents of’ California, ‘it is irrelevant where’ their hotels are located.’”).)

For these reasons, the Court holds that Plaintiff has carried her burden of proving that Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with California to justify the assertion of specific personal jurisdiction. Defendants have not met its burden to demonstrate that it would be unreasonable to subject them to specific personal jurisdiction in California. (See Snowney, 35 Cal.4th at 1070 (stating that a defendant who has purposefully directed its activities at forum residents must present a compelling case that the presence of some other factors would render jurisdiction unreasonable).)

Accordingly, the motion to quash based on lack of personal jurisdiction is DENIED.

Forum Non Conveniens

With regard to forum non conveniens, Defendants have not shown that public and private factors weigh in favor of litigating this case in Arizona. Defendants argue that any judgment must be enforced in Arizona, witnesses are located in Arizona, Defendants engaged in conduct in Arizona, and that “[c]onversely, the citizens of California and Sacramento have little interest in regulating a horse training ranch in Rio Verde, Arizona.’” (Mot. at 8.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants made promises in California to support and promote Plaintiff’s California business after she completed Defendants’ training program. Plaintiff claims Defendants alleged they would do so by using Plaintiff as an assistant trainer at Defendants’ California events and on their website. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “stopped supporting and promoting her business by falsely impugning her abilities during those events in California and by falsely impugning her abilities on Defendants’ website, which was viewed by [Plaintiff’s] California customers.” (Oppo. at 11.) Plaintiff claims that other than Defendant Lyons, “all the witnesses to those events are located in California” and California has significant interest in regulating conduct occurring in the state. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that “[n]one of [Plaintiff’s] claims involve the teaching of the Program in Arizona, so the Arizona courts have no interest in these claims.” (Id.)

The State of California has an interest in litigating involving California residents. Moreover, the complaint alleges operative facts that occurred in California, including but not limited to Defendants’ activities within California and targeting of California residents. While some witnesses and evidence may be located in Arizona, some are

also located in California. On balance, the Court finds that Defendants have not shown that public and private factors weigh in favor of Arizona such that this case would “be more appropriately and justly tried” there. (See Stangvik, 54 Cal.3d at 751.)

Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action on the basis of forum non conveniens is DENIED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.