Case Name: Robertson v. Cartinhour
Case No.: 1-13-CV-256559

This is an action for breach of contract and fraud. Defendant William C. Cartinhour, Jr. (“Defendant”) moves to quash service of summons and to dismiss the complaint for inconvenient forum and makes a request for judicial notice in support thereof and in support of the reply. (Code Civ. Proc. [“CCP”], § 418.10.) Plaintiff Wade Robertson (“Plaintiff”) makes a request for judicial notice in support of his opposition.

Any purported requests for judicial notice that do not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(l) are denied.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice in support of the motion is GRANTED. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (a) & (d); see also Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 882 [“Lockley”] [courts may “take judicial notice of the existence” of documents in a court file and “facts in court records that are the result of an adversarial hearing that involved the question of their existence or nonexistence,” but not other facts or “the truth of hearsay statements” in the records]; see also Gbur v. Cohen (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 296, 301 [“Gbur”] [relevance].)

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice in support of the initial opposition is GRANTED as to the existence of the court records, but not as to the truth of hearsay statements or facts that are not the result of an adversarial hearing concerning the question of their existence. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d); see also Gbur, supra, at p. 301; see also Lockley, supra, at p. 882.)
Defendant’s request for judicial notice of a copy of the subject contract (“the Contract”) in support of the reply is GRANTED. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d); see also Gbur, supra, at p. 301; see also Lockley, supra, at p. 882.)

Defendant moves to quash for lack of proper service, and moves to dismiss for inconvenient forum based on lack of personal jurisdiction.

With respect to the motion to quash for lack of proper service, Plaintiff caused the papers to be served on Defendant in substantial compliance with the procedures set forth in CCP, section 415.40. Thus, the Court will not grant the motion to quash for lack of proper service.

Defendant challenges personal jurisdiction. Although he asserts his arguments with respect to personal jurisdiction as a forum issue, personal jurisdiction also pertains to the motion to quash. Inconvenient forum is not a jurisdictional doctrine; rather, it is an equitable doctrine invoking the court’s discretionary power to decline to exercise jurisdiction. (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 75.) Since a court must be able to exercise personal jurisdiction before exercising its discretion to decline to do so, the Court will first consider whether the motion to quash should be granted for lack of personal jurisdiction. If the Court finds the exercise of personal jurisdiction to be reasonable, then it will consider whether it should decline to exercise personal jurisdiction for inconvenient forum.

Personal jurisdiction over a nonresident-defendant requires such “minimum contacts” with the state that the exercise of jurisdiction does not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062.) The plaintiff bears the initial burden to present evidence justifying the exercise of jurisdiction, then the defendant bears the burden to show that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Id.) Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445 [“Vons”].) Plaintiff asserts that the Court may reasonably exercise either general or specific jurisdiction in this case. General jurisdiction requires contacts that are substantial, continuous, and systematic, and in such a case, the specific cause of action does not need to be connected with the defendant’s business relationship with the forum. (Id., at p. 445.) Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, his evidence does not suggest that Defendant’s contacts are sufficient to confer general jurisdiction. Rather, his evidence shows that Defendant’s only contact with the California forum is his complaint to the State Bar about Plaintiff’s out-of-state conduct.

“If 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 ([citation]), and the controversy is related to or arises out of a defendant’s contacts with the forum. [Citation.]” (Vons, supra, at p. 446, quotation marks omitted.) Specific jurisdiction requires a showing that (1) the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum; (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 state’s exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice (Pavlovich v. Super. Ct. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269; Snowney, supra, at p. 1068.) Plaintiff shows purposeful availment through evidence that Defendant filed a complaint against Plaintiff with the State Bar State Bar and sought reimbursement through its client security fund. However, Plaintiff fails to meet his burden with respect to the relatedness of Defendant’s contacts and Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, it would be unreasonable for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over Defendant.

Moreover, even if Plaintiff had met his initial burden, Defendant’s evidence shows that it would violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over him. Plaintiff has initiated various legal proceedings against Defendant in the District of Columbia. The Contract upon which Plaintiff’s claims are based states that it is governed by the laws of the District of Columbia. The alleged business venture (“the Partnership”) which is the subject of the Contract is a District of Columbia partnership entity, controlled by the laws of that jurisdiction. Courts in Tennessee and New York have determined that the District of Columbia is the proper forum to litigate disputes arising from the Contract and the Partnership. Lastly, the Defendant’s evidence shows that Plaintiff has been initiating legal proceedings against him in various jurisdictions in a bad-faith effort to delay/prevent Defendant from collecting a $7 million judgment from a case also based on the Contract and the Partnership. In light of the foregoing, exercising personal jurisdiction over Defendant would violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Thus, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant. In any event, the proper forum to hear this dispute is the District of Columbia.

Since the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant, the motion to quash or to dismiss is GRANTED.