Case Number: KC069602 Hearing Date: October 01, 2018 Dept: O

Advanced Purification Engineering Corporation v. Ispring Water Systems, LLC (KC069602)

Specially Appearing Defendants Cai and Chen’s MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Respondent: Cross-Complainant Muscle Bar, LLC

TENTATIVE RULING

Specially Appearing Defendants Cai and Chen’s motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED.

Specially Appearing Defendants Cai and Chen move to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction.

A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. (CCP 418.10(a)(1).)

When a nonresident defendant challenges personal jurisdiction the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that all necessary jurisdictional criteria are met. (Jewish Defense Org. v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4th 1045, 1054-55.) This burden must be met by competent evidence in affidavits and authenticated documentary evidence. (Id. at 1055.)

GENERAL JURISDICTION:

General jurisdiction may lie in situations where a foreign corporation’s “continuous corporate operations within a state [are] so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities. (International Shoe (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 318.) “A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so “continuous and systematic” as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.” (Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011) 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2851.) The cause of action need not be related to the defendant’s contacts. (Thomson v. Anderson (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 258, 265-266.)

Here, Defendants Cai and Chen present evidence that they are residents of the state of Georgia. (Cai and Chen Decls., Pars. 2 and 4.) Neither of the Defendants own real property or conduct any personal business in California. (Id. at Pars. 5-7.) The court finds there is no general jurisdiction.

SPECIFIC JURISDICTION:

Specific jurisdiction results when the defendant’s contacts with the forum state, though not enough to subject the defendant to the general jurisdiction of the forum, are sufficient to subject the defendant to suit in the forum on a cause of action related to or arising out of those contacts. (Aquila, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 569-570.) Specific jurisdiction exists if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed itself of forum benefits with respect to the matter in controversy; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum; and (3) the assertion of jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice. (Id. at 570.) Courts must additionally evaluate the burden on the defendant of appearing in the forum, the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the claim, the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective relief within the forum, judicial economy, and the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. (Id.)

“The mere posting of information or advertisements on an Internet website does not confer nationwide personal jurisdiction… Something more… is needed to indicate that the person purposefully… directed the activity in a substantial way to the forum state… the exercise of personal jurisdiction must be based on forum-related acts that were personally committed by each nonresident defendant… The purposes and acts of one party—even an alleged coconspirator—cannot be imputed to a third party to establish jurisdiction over the third party defendant.” (Burdick v. Superior Court (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 8, 20-23.)

Chen is corporate Defendant iSpring’s CEO and Cai is iSpring’s Vice President. (Cai and Chen Decls., Par. 1.)

Plaintiff contends that Chen purchased Plaintiff’s water system through Amazon on January 2018, and returned it because the “Product is not as described on website.” (Libman Decl., Par. 6; Ex. 4.) This act, alone, is not sufficient to establish purposeful availment. Chen purchased a product on Amazon, which is an internet website, and returned it. The order was processed by Amazon, and then mailed to his home in Georgia, and later returned for a refund that was mailed from his home in Georgia. The transaction is not a sale of a product that was openly marketed and sold in California. Chen did not direct any activity in a substantial way to California.

Plaintiff also contends that Defendants caused negative reviews of Plaintiff’s products. However, the evidence submitted is Plaintiff’s own cease and desist letter. Such is not evidence that Defendants were responsible for the negative reviews.

Plaintiff also submits Ex. 5 under seal. Ex. 5 does not reveal any evidence establishing that Defendants made any fraudulent statements. Ex. 5 is merely Defendants’ notification to Amazon that Plaintiff was buying fake reviews through Fiverr since 2014, and that Amazon’s lawsuit against Fiverr in 2016 is well known. It is unclear why Amazon removed Plaintiff’s positive reviews, but there is no evidence that such was done at the insistence of Defendants, or that Defendants’ statements were untrue. More importantly, Defendants’ complaints were directed to Amazon; they were not directed to any California entity.

Based on the limited evidence submitted in this matter, the court finds that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that all necessary jurisdictional criteria are met. (Jewish Defense Org. v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4th 1045, 1054-55.)

Motion is GRANTED.