Case Number: BC491741 Hearing Date: June 10, 2014 Dept: 56

Case Name: Rusnak v. Salaman, et al.
Case No.: BC491741
Matter: Motion to Quash Service
Moving Party: Defendant Kaplan
Responding Party: Plaintiff Rusnak

Tentative Ruling: Motion is denied.

Plaintiff Taroub Rusnak filed this action against Janice Salaman, Steven Kaplan and other defendants for fraudulent transfer and fraud. Kaplan moves to quash service of the summons and complaint pursuant to CCP §418.10 on the ground that California lacks personal jurisdiction over him.

“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. This burden must be met by competent evidence in affidavits and authenticated documentary evidence.” Ziller Electronics v. Superior Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232-33. Once facts showing minimum contacts with the forum state are established, “it becomes the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” Vons 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.

Kaplan has submitted evidence that he has been an Illinois resident since 1965, conducts no business in California or with California residents, and owns no real or personal property in California. Kaplan argues that no grounds for general or specific jurisdiction exist.

Plaintiff argues that there are grounds for specific jurisdiction over Kaplan. Plaintiff has submitted evidence that he recovered a judgment of more than $1.7 million in San Francisco Superior Court against Salaman on 1/7/09. On 1/29/09 Salaman signed written instructions to wire transfer $750,000 from her Ameritrade accounts in California to a financial account held by Kaplan in Illinois [Wenger Decl. Ex. E]. Following these and other transfers, Salaman’s Ameritrade accounts were reduced to nothing [Id. Ex. D]. Plaintiff has determined that Salaman has transferred all of her assets out of California, and Plaintiff has been unable to collect on the 1/7/09 judgment [Id.]. In the complaint, Plaintiff has asserted two causes of action for fraudulent transfer against Kaplan, alleging that he knowingly received Salaman’s assets with the intent to hinder and delay the enforcement of Plaintiff’s judgment against Salaman.

Under these circumstances, Plaintiff has established grounds for specific jurisdiction over Kaplan, based upon out-of-state conduct which has caused injury to Plaintiff in California and which has interfered with the collection of a California judgment. See Gilmore Bank v. AsiaTrust New Zealand (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1558, 1574 (personal jurisdiction over foreign defendant which received assets after judgment); Gutierrez v. Givens (SD Cal. 1998) 1 F.Supp.2d 1077, 1082-83 (same); State Farm Mutual v. Tz’Doko V’Chesed (ED Penn. 2008) 543 F.Supp.2d 424, 430-31 (same).

Kaplan has failed to present evidence that the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be unreasonable. When there is a basis for personal jurisdiction, the party seeking to quash service must present a “compelling case” that other factors would render jurisdiction unreasonable. See Anglo Irish Bank v. Superior Ct. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 969, 980 (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudezewicz (1985) 471 US 462, 477). Kaplan has failed to do so.

The motion to quash service of the summons and complaint is denied. Kaplan shall answer within 10 days.