Case Name:   Tallac Ventures Inc. v. United Quotes, Inc., et al.

 

Case No.:       1-14-CV-261875

 

Motion by defendants Superleads.com, LLC, and Christiaan Van Der Put

to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint

 

This case arises out of an alleged breach of contract.  Plaintiff Tallac Ventures, Inc. alleges that defendants Christiaan Van Der Put, Clark Vera, Carlos Vera, United Quotes, Inc., Superleads.com, LLC, and Buildmyagency.com “initiated a scheme to collect and resell insurance leads without paying the fair value to the sources of those leads.”  (Complaint ¶¶ 18, 24.)  Plaintiff claims that in furtherance of the scheme, the individual defendants organized United Quotes, Superleads, and Buildmyagency, which are their alter egos, for the purpose of avoiding individual liability.  (Complaint ¶¶ 15-19, 23.)  Plaintiff asserts that Superleads, Buildmyagency, and United Quotes are actually the same business entity and differ only in name, such that Superleads and Buildmyagency are each liable for the debts of United Quotes.  (Complaint ¶¶ 20-21.)  As part of the scheme, the individual defendants induced Plaintiff to enter into a series of written purchase orders with United Quotes, under which Plaintiff supplied insurance sales leads to United Quotes.  (Complaint ¶¶ 19, 25.)  Plaintiff alleges that at the time it entered into the contracts, the individual defendants knew that United Quotes was insolvent and would never pay the full amount owed.  (Complaint ¶¶ 22, 30, 47-51.)  Plaintiff delivered the insurance leads to the defendants, but defendants failed to pay for the insurance leads pursuant to the terms of the written contracts.  (Complaint ¶¶ 33-34.)  The individual defendants then caused Superleads to assume the debt of United Quotes and agreed to make payments on the outstanding debt under a payment plan on behalf of United Quotes and Superleads.  (Complaint ¶¶ 21, 26, 41-42.)  Defendants failed to continue to make such payments and are allegedly indebted to Plaintiff in the approximate amount of $215,913.97. (Complaint ¶ 35, 57.)

 

On June 9, 2014, Superleads and Van Der Put filed this motion to quash service of summons and for dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).)  Plaintiff filed opposition to the motion on June 27, 2014.  On July 2, 2014, Superleads and Van Der Put filed a reply and objections to Plaintiff’s evidence.  On July 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ objections and a “supplemental” declaration of Candace Maddux.  That declaration is not “supplemental” as there is nothing in that declaration that relates to events occurring after the filing of the declaration in opposition to the motion, and Plaintiff identifies no reason why the information was not supplied with the opposition.  As Defendants have not been given an opportunity to respond to this declaration, the court will therefore not consider it.

 

I.  Defendants’ Objections to Evidence

 

Defendants make numerous objections to the Declaration of Candace Maddux.  Ms. Maddux’s recitations in her declaration as if it were her statement under oath of matters set forth in attachments, that approach is inappropriate and the personal knowledge and hearsay objections are sustained.  This declaration does not provide authenticating evidence of the type available in People v. Valdez (2011) 201 Cal.App.4^th 1429 (defendant’s social media page authenticated by photographs of him on the page, references to him by name and relation, and stated interests matching those known to police officers concerning defendant).  Objections 1 through 12 are sustained.

 

Defendants make two objections to the Declaration of Brian Harley.  The first states no legal basis for the objection but instead argues the weight of the evidence.  That objection is overruled.  The second objection to paragraph 5 is sustained.

 

II.  Motion to Quash

 

Factual assertions in a memorandum which are not supported by evidence cannot provide a basis for granting relief.  Smith, Smith & Kring v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4^th 573, 578.

 

Plaintiff’s evidence shows that two of Plaintiff’s orders were signed by VanDerput on behalf of United Quotes, and that several years earlier VanDerput lived in California.  Plaintiff has not put forward sufficient admissible evidence to meet its burden to demonstrate sufficient contacts for either defendant, either for general or specific jurisdiction.

 

III.  Request for Continuance to Conduct Discovery 

 

According to the authority cited by Plaintiff, there is a burden to be met in connection with a request for a continuance to conduct discovery:  “In order to prevail on a motion for a continuance for jurisdictional discovery, the plaintiff should demonstrate that discovery is likely to lead to the production of evidence of facts establishing jurisdiction.”  In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II (2055) 135 Cal.App.4^th 100, 127 (affirming order denying request for discovery).

 

Plaintiff has not met this burden with respect to VanDerPut, and the motion is denied as to him.  The motion as to Superleads.com, LLC, is continued to September 18, 2014, to allow for additional discovery concerning the relationship to United Quotes and any other factors that may tend to show either general or specific jurisdiction.  Healthmarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal.App.4^th 1160, 1173.