Case Number: SC129033 Hearing Date: November 21, 2018 Dept: M

CASE NAME: Scott M. Disick v. Motorcar Classics

CASE NUMBER: SC129033

COMPLAINT FILED: 3/21/2018

HEARING DATE: 11/21/2018

TRIAL DATE: N/A

NOTICE: OK

MOTION: Defendant Motorcar Classics’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

HELD: DENIED

TENTATIVE RULING

Background

Plaintiff purchased a car from Defendant Motorcar Classics, Inc., a New York Corporation. Motorcar allegedly sold the vehicle on consignment for Defendant Marcus J. Hirsch, a California resident. After taking delivery of the vehicle, Plaintiff allegedly discovered that it was in a state of disrepair. Plaintiff sought a refund of the vehicle’s sale price, which Defendants allegedly refused to provide. Plaintiff therefore filed the instant action.

Defendant Motorcar Classics moves to quash Plaintiff’s service of summons and complaint on the grounds that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant.

Merits

Personal jurisdiction takes two forms—general and specific. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445.) General jurisdiction exists when a nonresident defendant has “substantial . . . continuous and systematic” contacts in the forum state. (Id.) Specific jurisdiction exists when 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.” (Id. at 446.) A state, for example, may exert specific jurisdiction if “a corporation delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum state.” (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 2174, 2182.) When, however, a California buyer reaches out to a seller in another state, purchases the seller’s product in the other state, and has no further contacts with Plaintiff, specific jurisdiction does not exist. (Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc. (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1262.)

Here, Defendant Motorcar Classics moves to quash Plaintiff’s summons on the grounds that the Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction – either general or specific – over Defendant. (Motion to Quash at pgs. 3-8.).

General Jurisdiction

On the basis of the declarations and judicially noticeable evidence attached to the Motion, it is clear that Defendant lacks “substantial, continuous, and systematic” contacts in California. William Branston—Defendant’s owner and managing member – has stated in a sworn declaration that Motorcar classics has no office, facilities, employees, staff, personal property, agent for service of process, phone number, mailing address, or bank account in California. (Branston Decl. at ¶¶11-16.) Further, Defendant’s judicially noticed Exhibit D indicates that Defendant was not registered to do business in the State of California. All of these facts – undisputed by the Plaintiff – indicate that general jurisdiction over the Defendant does not exist here.

Specific Jurisdiction

As to specific jurisdiction, however, Plaintiff alleges – and Defendant’s motion does not dispute – that Defendant Motorcar Classics intentionally entered into a consignment agreement with co-Defendant Hirsch, a California resident, to sell his vehicle that was registered in California. (FAC ¶¶ 7, 18.) This is unlike the facts in Shisler, where the only contact with the forum was a sale – in another state – to the forum resident. Here, Defendant’s apparent knowing entry into a consignment contract with a California resident to sell his California vehicle to another California resident, and that delivery was effectuated in California (Disick Decl. ¶ 10) constitutes Defendant’s purposeful availing of this forum’s benefits. The allegation that false representations about the condition of the vehicle were made to Plaintiff in California confirms this finding of specific jurisdiction.

Defendant’s Motion is therefore DENIED.