Case Number: 13K17426    Hearing Date: August 12, 2014    Dept: 77

Specially Appearing Defendant No Mondays Productions, Inc.’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is GRANTED. CCP § 418.10.

A motion to quash service of summons is the first line of defense against an improper summons or service. CCP § 418.10(a)(1). Although the defendant is the moving party, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. “Where jurisdiction is challenged by a non-resident Defendant, the burden of proof is upon the Plaintiff to demonstrate that ‘minimum contacts’ exist between Defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.” Mihlon v. Superior Court (Murkey) (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710. The burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that all jurisdictional criteria are met.

Minimum contacts means the relationship is such that the exercise of jurisdiction over the nonresident does not offend “traditional notices of fair play and substantial justice.” International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316. The extent to which a California court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant depends on the nature and quality of the defendant’s contacts with the state. Even if a nonresident defendant’s contacts with California are not sufficiently “continuous and systematic” for general jurisdiction, it may still be subject to jurisdiction on clams related to its activities on contacts here. Such limited or specific personal jurisdiction requires a showing that: (1) the out of state defendant purposefully established contacts with the forum state; (2) the plaintiff’s cause of action “arises out of” or is “related to” the defendant’s contact with the forum; and (3) the forum’s exercise of personal jurisdiction in the particular case comports with “fair play and substantial justice.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 477-78.

Nonresidents whose commercial activities impact California on a “substantial, continuous and systematic” basis are subject to general (unlimited) jurisdiction. In such cases, the defendant’s contacts with the forum are so wide-ranging that they take the place of physical presence with forum as a basis for jurisdiction. See Cornelison v. Chaney (1976) 16 Cal.3d 143, 147.

As to specific jurisdiction, “[i]f the nonresident defendant does not have substantial and systematic contacts in the forum sufficient to establish general jurisdiction, he or she still may be subject to the specific jurisdiction of the forum, if the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits, and the ‘controversy is related to or “arises out of” a defendant’s contacts with the forum.’” (Vons Co. Inc. v. Seabest Foods Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 446.) The forum contacts necessary to establish specific jurisdiction involve: (1) a nonresident who has purposefully directed his or her activities at forum residents, or (2) who has purposefully derived benefit from forum activities, or (3) purposefully availed himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus involving the benefits and privileges of its laws. Once it has been decided that a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts with the forum State, these contacts may be considered in light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with “fair play and substantial justice.” Courts may evaluate the burden on the defendant of appearing in the forum, the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the claim, the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective relief within the forum, judicial economy, and the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. Id.

This motion is granted. Plaintiff has not sustained her burden of proof. Plaintiff has failed to show that there are sufficient minimum contacts to support personal jurisdiction over this defendant. Defendant has submitted a declaration and plaintiff has not. From this evidence, it appears undisputed that Defendant is domiciled in Texas and had no contacts with the State of California apart from this case. This contracts case concerns work that Plaintiff solicited and then offered to perform for logo design for a festival in Austin, Texas. The contract was signed in Texas. The fact that Plaintiff happen to be from California appears to have nothing to do with the contract or Defendant’s actions. There appears to be no manner in which defendant purposefully directed its activities at California and/or purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in California.

Alternatively, even if there were sufficient minimum contacts with California, it is not fair and reasonable to require Defendant to defend itself in California on these facts. In this case, the factors weigh heavily against jurisdiction over Defendant.

Accordingly, the complaint is hereby dismissed.

Moving party to give notice.