2013-00146522-CU-BT

Image Intl Manufacturing vs. Lira Cosmeceutical

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Filed By: Radcliffe, Scott E.

*** If oral argument is requested, it will take place at 10:00 a.m. before Judge
Loncke. ***

Cross-defendant Ronert’s motion to quash service of summons and cross-complaint
for lack of personal jurisdiction is DENIED, as follows.

Opposing counsel is admonished for failing to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3)-(4).

Ronert, a Florida resident who was served with the summons and cross-complaint
there, seeks to quash service of summons on the ground she lacks the requisite
“minimum contacts” with the State of California such that there can be no general or
specific personal jurisdiction over her. More specifically, Ronert asserts there is no
general jurisdiction over her because she is not a California resident and cross-
complainants’ cannot make the requisite evidentiary showing needed to establish
specific jurisdiction over Ronert.

Cross-complainants’ oppose the motion. Although they concede there is no general
jurisdiction over Ronert, they argue the facts are sufficient to support specific
jurisdiction here because (1) the misconduct on which Ronert’s liability is based was
committed by her while in California and/or by correspondence which she directed at
cross-complainants who are residents of California and (2) the cross-complaint is
inextricably intertwined with the complaint such that the prosecution of the claims
against Ronert in this action will avoid a separate lawsuit and the potential for
inconsistent results. The opposition is supported by declarations from cross-
complainant Dalikas and her attorney, Mr. Levine.

Cross-defendant Ronert’s original objection to the entirety of both the original Dalikas
and Levine Declarations on the ground neither is signed “under penalty of perjury” in
conformity with Code of Civil Procedure §2015.5 is now overruled since the Court has
granted leave to file amended declarations which are “under penalty of perjury.”

Cross-defendant Ronert’s objections to select portions of the amended Dalikas
Declaration are overruled.

Cross-defendant Ronert’s objections to select portions of the amended Levine
Declaration are also overruled.

It is well established that cross-complainants, as the parties seeking to establish
personal jurisdiction over Ronert, bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of
the evidence that Ronert has the requisite “minimum contacts” with California. (School
Dist. Of Okaloosa County v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1131.) Cross-
complainants must “provide affidavits and other authenticated documents in order to
demonstrate competent evidence of jurisdictional facts. … 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.” (
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1118.)

Coupled with the fact that all of cross-defendant Ronert’s objections to the amended
declarations in opposition have now been overruled, the Court holds that cross-
complainants have produced evidence sufficient to establish by a “preponderance of
the evidence” that Ronert has the requisite “minimum contacts” with California to justify
the exercise of “specific” personal jurisdiction over her.

In particular, the evidence in opposition demonstrates that Ronert’s conduct was
expressly aimed and/or calculated to cause injury to cross-defendants within the
meaning of Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783, which held that a reporter and editor
based in Florida were subject to personal jurisdiction in California as result of an
allegedly defamatory article published in California about a California resident. In
reaching that result, the United States Supreme Court distinguished the reporter and
publisher’s intentional conduct which was directed at a specific California resident who
suffered harm from a scenario where a defendant can merely “foresee” a possibility of
an injury being caused in another jurisdiction. (Calder, at 789 [discussing World-Wide
Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286 and other precedent].) In the
case at bar, the evidence sufficiently indicates that cross-defendant Ronert more likely
than not intended her conduct to affect a particular individual within the State of
California or otherwise anticipated consequences in this state which could potentially
create personal jurisdiction over Ronert. Aside from the letters which cross-defendant
Ronert sent to California and which constitute part of the conduct which allegedly led
to injury within this state, the amended Dalikas Declaration shows that cross-defendant
Ronert made several visits to California to meet face-to-face with cross-defendants
and induced the latter’s actions which ultimately culminated in the alleged injuries and
damages.

For all these reasons, this Court holds that cross-complainants have carried their
burden of proving cross-defendant Ronert has sufficient “minimum contacts” with
California to justify the assertion of “specific” personal jurisdiction over the latter.
Accordingly, the motion to quash is hereby denied.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required.
(Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

Item 11 2013-00146522-CU-BT

Image Intl Manufacturing vs. Lira Cosmeceutical

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to File Amended Declarations in Opposition to Motion to Quash

Filed By: Frankel, Montgomery G.

*** If oral argument is requested, it will take place at 10:00 a.m. before Judge
Loncke. ***

Cross-complainants’ motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §473 to file amended
declarations (in opposition to cross-defendant Ronert’s motion to quash service of
summons and cross-complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction) is GRANTED.
Although the moving papers may not have included an exhaustive, comprehensive
recitation of each and every fact bearing on with cross-complainants’ earlier failure to
include in their original declarations in opposition the essential statement that they
were signed “under penalty of perjury” in conformity with Code of Civil Procedure
§2015.5, this Court holds that the moving papers here are sufficient to establish cross-
complainants’ entitlement to relief under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure
§473. This conclusion is reinforced by well-established decisional law. (See,e.g.,
Carrasco v. Craft(1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 796 [the broad, remedial provisions of §473
should be applied liberally to carry out the policy of trial on the merits, especially when
relief is timely sought].)

Cross-defendant Ronert’s sole objection to the Frankel Declaration is overruled.

Having granted this motion for relief under Code of Civil Procedure §473, the amended
declarations filed in connection with the present motion are hereby deemed filed and
served as of 5/6/2014, the date on which the original declarations were filed in
opposition to the underlying motion to quash. The Court notes that with the sole
exception of new final paragraphs averring the amended declarations are signed
“under penalty of perjury,” both of the amended declarations appear identical to the
original declarations.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required.
(Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)