What is a Motion for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction?

“A judgment can be void for lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction or for the granting of relief which the trial court had no power to grant. A trial court has the inherent power to set aside a judgment void on its face at any time.” Connelly v. Castillo (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1583, 1588; Strathvale Holdings v. E.B.H. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249.

A court may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of California or of the United States. Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10. The assertion of personal jurisdiction by a California court is proper if it “comports with the limits imposed by federal due process.” Young v. Daimler AG (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 855, 865.

The exercise of personal jurisdiction is constitutionally permissible only “if the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state so that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1166; Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316. A defendant’s conduct with the forum state must be such that the defendant has “fair warning” that its activities might subject it to personal jurisdiction. HealthMarkets, Inc., supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1166–1167; Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472; Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd., v. Super. Ct. of California, Solano County (1987) 480 U.S. 102, 113. Each defendant’s “contacts” with the forum state must be assessed individually. Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783, 790.

“A summons is the process by which a court acquires personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil action, and a defendant has an absolute right to demand that process be issued against him in a manner prescribed by law.” Mannesmann DeMag, Ltd. v. Super. Ct. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1118, 1122. “Due process of law does not require actual notice, but only a method reasonably certain to accomplish that end.” Baughman v. Medical Board (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 398, 402.

A defendant may serve and file a motion to quash service of summons on the grounds of a lack of jurisdiction over him or her. Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a)(1). A plaintiff opposing a motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction “has the initial burden to demonstrate facts establishing a basis for personal jurisdiction.” HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1167. If satisfied, the burden then shifts to defendant to show that exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. Id.

“A general appearance by a party is equivalent to personal service of summons on such party.” Code Civ. Proc., § 410.50(a); Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Sparks Construction, Inc. (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1145. “An appearance is general if the party contests the merits of the case or raises other than jurisdictional objections.” Geary St., L.P. v. Super. Ct. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1186, 1193-94. “By generally appearing, a defendant relinquishes all objections based on lack of personal jurisdiction or defective process or service of process.” In re Marriage of Obrecht (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1, 7-8.

Useful Rulings on Motion for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Recent Rulings on Motion for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL GREATER LOS ANGELES, INC. VS VICTORIA L. WALLS

Walls on June 18, 2020 are void due to the Court’s lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service. The proof of service of summons filed on November 27, 2019 states that defendant was substitute served with the summons and Complaint on November 22, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

BENITO GIACALONE VS FAISAL BIN AZIZ SAUD, ET AL.

Appeals Bd. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1028, 1037, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 539, 863 P.2d 784 [“Notwithstanding a ‘special appearance’ designation on a motion to quash, if the movant seeks relief on any basis other than lack of personal jurisdiction, he or she makes a general appearance”]; In re Clarke (1899) 125 Cal. 388, 392, 58 P. 22 [“On general principles, a statement that a defendant or party makes a special appearance is of no consequence whatever....

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

CRAIG ROSS, ET AL. VS SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, ET AL.

.: 20SMCV00587 MOTION: Motion to Quash Service of Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction Motion to be Relieved as Counsel Background On April 15, 2020, Plaintiff Creative Concepts Holdings, LLC (“CCH”) filed a complaint against Brian Charles Keller, Richard Estalella, and Does 1-10 for intentional misrepresentation­­­­ and, in the alternative, negligent misrepresentation.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

KING, HOLMES, PATERNO & SORIANO, LLP VS JACOB KASHER HINDLIN

The New York court dismissed Hindlin’s claims against KHPS due to lack of personal jurisdiction and the existence of an arbitration clause. Hindlin re-filed his malpractice claims against KHPS via arbitration in California in 2019. KHPS brought this lawsuit claiming unpaid legal fees. Plaintiff moves to stay this action on the grounds that the New York litigation and the California arbitration with KHPS involve identical issues and create a risk of inconsistent outcomes.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

JEFFREY A SLOTT, INDIVIDUALLY VS AHMET JOHN BEDIZEL, INDIVIDUALLY

On September 23, 2019, Defendant Ahmet John Bedizel (“Defendant”) filed the instant motion to quash the service of summons and complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion was denied. Defendant has now filed motions for protective order, to deem request for admissions admitted and sanctions against Plaintiff. [Tentative] Ruling 1. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED. 2. Defendant’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted is DENIED. 3.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

OTT VS DILLAVOU

MCC and Countywide Mechanical Demurrers: MCC's general demurrer to the FAC based on lack of personal jurisdiction is overruled. Lack of personal jurisdiction is not ground for demurrer. See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 418.10, 430.10(a). The general demurrers to count 7 (violation of Labor Code section 132a) are sustained with leave to amend. "[A] trial court has no jurisdiction to hear a civil cause of action for an employer's breach of Labor Code section 132a." Dutra v. Mercy Medical Center Mt.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GREGORY TORRES ET AL VS HONEWELL INC ET AL

Miska, and a Table Graphic Within the Opposition Memorandum Lodged in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction TENTATIVE RULING Gregory Torres, et al.’s Ex Parte Application to Continue Hearing on Avco Corporation’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is granted. Gregory Torres, et al.’s Ex Parte Application to Seal is granted pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court (“CRC”), Rule 2.550, et seq.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MICHAEL BERLIN M D VS PATRICK JOHNSON M D ET AL

.: BC723995 Hearing Date: September 11, 2020 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: specially appearing CROSS-defendant BIANCA SHAH’S motion to quash FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION specially appearing CROSS-defendant SHREDZ SUPPLEMENTS, LLC’S motion to quash FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION Specially Appearing Cross-Defendant Bianca Shah’s Motion to Quash for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

.: BC723995 Hearing Date: September 11, 2020 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: specially appearing CROSS-defendant BIANCA SHAH’S motion to quash FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION specially appearing CROSS-defendant SHREDZ SUPPLEMENTS, LLC’S motion to quash FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION Specially Appearing Cross-Defendant Bianca Shah’s Motion to Quash for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

CHING VS. QUALITY HEALTHCARE

* TENTATIVE RULING: * The motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by defendants Craig Mitchell and Veteran’s InHome Family Care, LLC (“VIFC”) is denied. Plaintiff has sued four defendants in this case for the return of a $35,000 investment she sent to VIFC. The investment was to be used to convert a motel or hotel into a health care facility. Two of the defendants, Quality Health Asset Management (“QHAM”) and Tracy Brown are apparently California residents.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

BETH BOGAERTS VS THOMAS SCHOENBERGER, ET AL.

.: 20STCV10636 Hearing Date: September 9, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction Background A. Complaint Plaintiff Beth Bogaerts (Plaintiff) commenced this action against Defendants Thomas Schoenberger (Schoenberger), Trevor Fitzgibbon (Fitzgibbon), Manuel Chavez (Chavez), and Michael Levine (Levine) (collectively, Defendants) on March 16, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PMKM, LLC DBA QUALITY HOME INFUSION, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS BROTHERS HEALTHCARE, INC., ET AL.

(“Brothers”) moves to quash service of summons pursuant to CCP § 418.10(a)(1) for lack of personal jurisdiction. When a plaintiff fails to properly serve a defendant, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and they may bring a motion to quash service pursuant to section 418.10. (Greener v. Workers’ Com. Appeals Bd. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1028, 1036.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ADVANCED FROZEN TREAT TECHNOLOGY INC ET AL VS THE VOLLRATH C

Levine to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(2) for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss for Improper Venue (28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)) or, in the Alternative, to Transfer for Convenience (28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)) in the Wisconsin Action. E. The Memorandum for the motion in RJN D filed in the Wisconsin Action. F. Order Denying motion in RJN D in the Wisconsin Action. G. The Motion of Advanced Frozen Treat Technology Inc., Prism Marketing Corporation, and Steven J.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TAKAKO MIKURIYA VS PABLO DANIEL HERNANDEZ ET AL

“…a lack of personal jurisdiction renders a judgment (or default) void, and the default may be directly challenged at any time….they filed a motion to vacate the void default under section 473 within two months after its entry. They preserved the issue of personal jurisdiction and brought an appropriate direct attack on the default.” (Strathvale Holdings v. E.B.H. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1250.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

JOHN DARBY HOWARD JR. VS. JAY BROWN, ET AL

of personal jurisdiction.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

JOEL WISE VS QUICK WIRELESS, INC, ET AL.

Tayebi and Sima Rafii-Malek’s Motions to Quash Service for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction are GRANTED.Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC V. STRICKLER

The underlying judgment is void for lack of personal jurisdiction due to failure to serve defendant. Renewal of a void judgment merely creates a void renewed judgment subject to being vacate at any time. There is no evidence before the court that defendant was formally served the summons and complaint that he admitted receiving on February 19, 2020 and insufficient evidence to establish he was formally served at any other time.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

NOVIN DEVELOPMENT VS. BROOKFIELD

The rule is that "a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction does not put the merits of the complaint at issue." (Sonora Diamond, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at 540.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

TRAN VS. FARMERS GROUP INC

Alternatively, the defendants sought dismissal under: (1) FRCP 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction; (2) FRCP 12(b)(3) for improper venue; and FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. As an alternative to dismissal, the defendants asked that the case be transferred to the Southern District of California so that it could be tried against Defendant. Id.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

TRAN VS. FARMERS GROUP INC

Alternatively, the defendants sought dismissal under: (1) FRCP 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction; (2) FRCP 12(b)(3) for improper venue; and FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. As an alternative to dismissal, the defendants asked that the case be transferred to the Southern District of California so that it could be tried against Defendant. Id.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LAKEISHA FERNANDEZ VS WESTLAKE SERVICES LLC.

A motion to quash service of summons may be brought by a defendant on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, to stay or dismiss the action due to an inconvenient forum, or to dismiss the action for delay in prosecution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10.) A motion to quash may also be brought to quash a subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3.) Neither applies here. However, the Court addresses Plaintiff’s arguments as follows.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RYAN HOFFMAN VS SYSTEM1, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

On April 13, 2020, Defendant Court Square Capital Partners, LLC filed the instant motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. “A request has been made to designate this case complex.” On April 14, 2020, Defendants filed complex civil case questionnaires.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

RYAN HOFFMAN VS SYSTEM1, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

On April 13, 2020, Defendant Court Square Capital Partners, LLC filed the instant motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. “A request has been made to designate this case complex.” On April 14, 2020, Defendants filed complex civil case questionnaires.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SALVADOR MAGANA VS. SANTA PAULA MATERIALS INC

) (6) The Court has the discretion to continue a hearing on a specially-appearing defendant's motion to quash service of the summons and complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction upon the request of the plaintiff, so long as the plaintiff demonstrates that further discovery during the delay reasonably is likely to produce evidence demonstrating general and/or specific jurisdiction. (HealthMarkets, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

WIENER VS. PEREZ [EFILE]

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION by specially appearing defendants Rafael Perez, Christine Wiener, individually and as executrix, and Estate of Donald Joseph Wiener Coss is GRANTED. In light of this ruling, the ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO STAY OR DISMISS THE ACTION ON THE GROUND OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS is moot. Defendants Rafael Gama Perez and Christine Louise Wiener are citizens and residents of Mexico. Neither own any property or assets here.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 42     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.