Case Number: BC500452    Hearing Date: September 03, 2014    Dept: 56

Case Name: Rosales, et al. v. Cho, et al.
Case No.: BC500452
Matter: Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint
Moving Party: Defendant Shinhan Investment
Responding Party: Plaintiffs

Tentative Ruling: Motion to quash is granted.

Plaintiffs Juan Ramon Rosales, et al. filed this action against Shinhan Investment Corp. and other defendants, arising out of alleged inhabitable conditions in an apartment building. Shinhan moves to quash service of the summons and complaint.

Service of Process –
Plaintiffs filed a proof of service for Shinhan, indicating personal service on attorney Chan S. Jeon of Lee, Hong, Degerman, Kang & Waimey (LDKW). Shinhan contends that this service was not proper. Compliance with the statutes governing service of process is essential to establish that court’s personal jurisdiction over a defendant. When a defendant challenges jurisdiction by bringing a motion to quash, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove effective service. Dill v. Berquist Construction (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-40.

Shinhan submits evidence that it is a South Korean corporation, headquartered in Seoul, Korea, and neither LDKW nor any of the law firm’s attorneys is authorized to accept service. Shinhan contends that Plaintiffs’ service was not proper under CCP §416.10 and did not comply with the Hague Convention.

Plaintiffs fail to submit any evidence to support LDKW’s authority to accept service of process for Shinhan. Indeed, Shinhan submits evidence that Plaintiffs’ counsel was notified that LDKW was not authorized to accept service on its behalf. Plaintiffs merely argue that LDKW has a close relationship with Shinhan, and that LDKW has represented Shinhan-related entities and acted as a designated beneficiary on other occasions. Without more specific evidence of LDKW’s authority, Plaintiffs have failed to establish proper service.

Personal Jurisdiction –
Shinhan also challenges the summons on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. 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; if minimum contacts with the forum state are established, then it becomes the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” Ziller Electronics v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232-33; Vons Cos. v. Seabest Foods (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 449. California may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant 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. E.g. Snowney v. Harrah’s (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 106. Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. General jurisdiction exists if a nonresident’s contacts with California are “substantial … continuous and systematic.” Vons, supra 14 Cal.4th at 445. Specific jurisdiction exists 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.” Snowney, supra 35 Cal.4th at 1062; accord Vons, supra 14 Cal.4th at 446.

Shinhan submits evidence that it conducts no activities in California; its only connection to this case was agreeing to extend credit to a South Korean entity affiliated with Artmonde LLC; and its agreement to extend credit was negotiated and consummated in South Korea. Plaintiff has failed to respond with any evidence supporting general or specific grounds for personal jurisdiction. Indeed, Plaintiff has wholly failed to address personal jurisdiction at all. Plaintiff has failed to establish any basis for personal jurisdiction over Shinhan.

Ruling –
The motion is granted and service of the summons and complaint upon Shinhan is quashed.