SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

SHERRIE LYN WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

VANTAGE SOURCING, INC., a Tennessee limited liability company; SCOTT ALAN STANFORD, individually and in his official capacity; DERRICK DEAN WILLMAN, individually and in his official capacity; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.
Case No. 2017-1-CV-315216

TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION TO QUASH

The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle on August 3, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. The Court now issues its tentative ruling as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a putative consumer class action. Plaintiff Sherrie Lyn Walker (“Plaintiff”) alleges defendants Vantage Sourcing, LLC (“Vantage”), Scott Alan Stanford, and Derrick Dean Willman (collectively, “Defendants”) have a routine practice of sending initial written communications that fail to provide the “Consumer Collection Notice” required by California Civil Code section 1812.700, subdivision (a), in a type-size that is at least the same type-size as that used to inform the debtor of his or her specific debt or in at least 12-point type. (Class Action Complaint for Statutory Damages (“Complaint”), ¶ 3.) The Complaint, filed on August 29, 2017, sets forth a single cause of action for “California Consumer Collection Notice.”

On May 4, 2018, the Court heard two motions: (1) specially appearing individual defendants Scott Alan Stanford and Derrick Dean Willman’s (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction; and (2) Plaintiff’s demurrer to answer to complaint. The Court issued a ruling on the demurrer, but continued the motion to quash for further proceedings because Plaintiff sought limited discovery to obtain evidence supporting jurisdiction. The Court now rules on the motion to quash.

II. MOTION TO QUASH

A. Request for Judicial Notice

The Individual Defendants request judicial notice of the following:

(1) Order re: Motion to Quash; Demurrer to Answer, filed in Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, on May 4, 2018 (“Motion to Quash Order”);

(2) Defendant Vantage Sourcing LLC’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One), verified by Scott Stanford on May 11, 2018; and

(3) Defendant Vantage Sourcing LLC’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), verified by Scott Stanford on May 11, 2018.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (d) and (h).)

B. Discussion

In connection with the original hearing on the motion to quash, the Court found there was no general jurisdiction over the Individual Defendants. (See Motion to Quash Order, p. 3:8-18.) With regard to specific jurisdiction, the Court found Plaintiff had submitted minimal evidence regarding the Individual Defendants’ contacts with California. (Id. at p. 4:20-27.) Plaintiff conceded it needed to conduct additional discovery and, as stated previously, the Court agreed to allow additional jurisdictional discovery.

While the Individual Defendants have filed a supplemental brief and submitted discovery responses in connection with that brief, Plaintiff has not filed any supplemental brief or additional evidence, apparently conceding Plaintiff does not have evidence sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the Court’s prior order on this motion (i.e. Plaintiff’s lack of evidence), the Individual Defendants’ motion to quash is GRANTED.

The Court will prepare the final order if this tentative ruling is not contested.