Case Name: Kelleen Hails v. David Solnick, et al.
Case No.: 1-13-CV-247629

Defendants Melissa Kelton Solnick and David Solnick (“David”) (collectively, “the Solnicks”) move to quash the first amended complaint (“FAC”) of plaintiff Kelleen Hails (“Plaintiff”) on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, or alternatively move to dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum. (See Code Civ. Proc. [“CCP”], § 418.10 subd. (a)(1)-(2).) Defendant D Solnick Design, LLC (“DSDD”) also moves to quash the FAC for lack of personal jurisdiction or alternatively to dismiss the action for inconvenient forum. (See id.)

Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice are GRANTED. (See Evid. Code § 452, subds. (c) & (d); see also Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264 [“Fontenot”] and People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422, fn. 2 [“People ex rel. Lockyer”].)

The Solnicks’ requests for judicial notice are GRANTED. (See Evid. Code § 452, subds. (c) & (d); see also Fontenot, supra, at p. 264 and People ex rel. Lockyer, supra, at p. 422, fn. 2.)

The Solnicks’ motion to quash the FAC on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction or to dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum is DENIED. The Solnicks already filed an answer in this action and therefore have generally appeared. (See Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Sparks Construction, Inc. (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1145 [generally appearing in an action waives any objection to personal jurisdiction]; see also CCP, § 1014 [filing an answer is a general appearance].) With respect to the Solnicks’ inconvenient forum argument, they do not proffer sufficient facts for the Court to decline to assert personal jurisdiction over them. (See Ford Motor Co. v. Insurance Co. of No. America (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 604, 610-611 & 615-616, [“[u]nless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed”], citation omitted; see also Stangvik v. Shiley, Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751 [providing that the doctrine of forum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine that is discretionary and requires the moving party to demonstrate that another forum exists and that public and private factors weigh in favor of having the other forum litigate the dispute]; and CCP, § 410.30, subd. (a).) The alleged acts that gave rise to the dispute at issue occurred in California, the real property at issue is located in California, and aside from the Solnicks themselves, the necessary witnesses (e.g., nonparty Karl Meyer) are located in California. Furthermore, while New York marital property laws may be relevant to determine whether the alleged transactions at issue were fraudulent, the causes of action in this case arise under California law (see Civ. Code, § 3439, et seq. [Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act]), and California has a strong interest in litigating this dispute in this forum.

DSDD’s motion to quash the FAC on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction or to dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum is DENIED. David admits that he is the sole member of DSDD, and since David resided in California at the time when Plaintiff alleges DSDD acted unlawfully (i.e. 2006 to 2007), the Court may assert general jurisdiction over DSDD. (David’s Decl., ¶¶ 1 & 3 and FAC, ¶¶ 11C & 20; see Boaz v. Boyle & Co., Inc. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 700, 717 [relevant period during which “minimum contacts” must have existed is when the cause of action arose]; see also International Aerial Tramway Corp. v. Konrad Doppelmayr & Sohn (1969) 70 Cal. 2d 400, 404-405 [court may assert jurisdiction over a partnership to the same extent that it may exercise jurisdiction over a corporation], and Magnecomp. v. Athene Co., Ltd. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 526, 536-537 [“minimum contacts” by a nonresident corporation’s agents may be imputed to the nonresident principle, e.g., foreign corporations may be subjected to personal jurisdiction based on their agents’ activities within the forum state].) Even assuming arguendo that DSDD was not subject to general jurisdiction, Plaintiff persuasively argues that the Court may assert specific jurisdiction over DSDD because it purposefully availed itself of the laws of California by obtaining and then transferring title to real property in this state (See Ps’ RJN iso DSDD’s Mtn, at Exs. CC & DD), those actions are substantially related to this case because DSDD’s receipt and transfer of that real property is central to Plaintiff’s claims against DSDD (see FAC, ¶¶ 11C & 20), and the Court’s assertion of jurisdiction over DSDD is otherwise reasonable. (See Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 446 [specific jurisdiction may be asserted if the nonresident (1) purposefully availed itself of the laws of the state, (2) the purposeful availment is substantially related to the underlying facts in the case, and (3) it is reasonable for the court to assert jurisdiction].) Also, DSDD’s arguments in support of its motion to dismiss for inconvenient forum are nearly identical to the arguments the Solnicks’ raised in support of their motion. For the same reasons set forth above, DSDD’s arguments are unavailing.