2017-00220149-CU-MC

David Masters vs. The Foundation of Human Understanding

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Filed By: Schrimp de la Vergne, Angela

Specially Appearing Michael Masters’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons for lack of personal jurisdiction is unopposed, taken as a concession to the merits, and is granted.

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted.

Defendant brings this motion pursuant to CCP 418.10(a)(1), on the grounds that this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over defendant Masters because defendant Masters has no minimum contacts with the State of California.

This case is one of three lawsuits that have been and are being litigated by plaintiff David Masters against his father, defendant Roy Masters, and his brothers Alan and Michael Masters regarding a nonprofit corporation known as The Foundation of Human Understanding (“FHU”).

Michael is a resident of the state of Oregon where he has lived since 1986. Prior to that he lived and conducted business in California until 1991. Michael does not conduct business in California and does not own any property, real or personal, in California. Although he was at one time a board member of FHU, he resigned from that position over 30 years ago and has had no involvement since. Michael was not personally served with the summons and Amended Complaint in this matter while physically present in California. (Declaration of Michael Masters)

On a challenge to personal jurisdiction by a motion to quash, the plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the factual bases justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 449; BBA Aviation PLC v. Superior Court (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 421, 428.) The plaintiff cannot simply allege jurisdictional facts to survive the motion to quash; the plaintiff must come forward with affidavits and other competent evidence to carry this burden. (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & 11(2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110.) “Allegations in an unverified complaint are insufficient to satisfy this burden of proof. Declarations cannot be mere vague assertions of ultimate facts, but must offer specific evidentiary facts permitting a court to form an independent conclusion on the issue of jurisdiction.” Ibid. If a plaintiff meets this burden, “it becomes the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 449.)

Under California’s long-arm statute, California 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.) “A state court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who has not been served with process within the state comports with the requirements of the due process clause of the federal Constitution 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.'” (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 444, quoting Internat. Shoe Co. V. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316). “The Due Process Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] protects an individual’s liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful ‘contacts, ties, or relations.'” [Pedus Building Services, Inc. v. Allen (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 152, 162, quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462,471-472.)

“Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. A nonresident defendant may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if his or her contacts in the forum state are ‘substantial … continuous and systematic.’ Specific jurisdiction exists when, although the defendant lacks such pervasive forum contacts that the defendant may be treated as present for all purposes, it is nonetheless proper to subject the defendant to the forum state’s jurisdiction in connection with a particular controversy.” (ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198, 209 [citations omitted]. Therefore, personal jurisdiction analysis involves two questions: (1) Does general jurisdiction exist; and (2) absent general jurisdiction, does specific jurisdiction exist?

Plaintiff has filed no opposition to show either general or specific jurisdiction over the moving defendant. Plaintiff has not met his burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the factual bases justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 449; BBA Aviation PLC v. Superior Court (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 421, 428.)

Therefore, the unopposed motion to quash is granted.

The prevailing party shall prepare a formal order for the Court’s signature pursuant to C.R.C. 3.1312.