On 06/07/2019 PAULA KAVALIS filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against LEE RODRIGUEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Disposed - Dismissed
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JAMES E. BLANCARTE
10/8/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service
12/4/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)
12/4/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Non-Jury Trial) of 12/04/2020
1/21/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
1/21/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Ofer M. Grossman In Support of Motion to Quash - No Opposition to Motion Received
1/22/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Ofer M. Grossman In Support of Motion to Quash Notice of Non- Opposition to Motion Received from Plaintiffs Counsel
1/27/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)
1/28/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Of Ruling on Motion to Quash Service of Summmons
1/28/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
11/22/2019: Motion to Quash Service of Summons - Motion to Quash Service of Summons
11/22/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
9/11/2019: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF BENNETT KERNS
9/13/2019: Order (name extension) - Order ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
6/7/2019: Complaint - Complaint
6/7/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
6/7/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint
6/7/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
DocketOn the Complaint filed by PAULA KAVALIS on 06/07/2019, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice as to the entire action, pursuant to CCP 581(b)(3)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order (Non-Jury Trial)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Non-Jury Trial) of 12/04/2020; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/04/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 12/04/2020; Result Type to HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 06/10/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 12/04/2020Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice Of Ruling on Motion to Quash Service of Summmons; Filed by: LEE RODRIGUEZ (Defendant); As to: PAULA KAVALIS (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: LEE RODRIGUEZ (Defendant); As to: PAULA KAVALIS (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketUpdated -- Proof of Personal Service: Filed By: PAULA KAVALIS (Plaintiff); Result: Stricken; Result Date: 01/27/2020; As To Parties: removedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)Read MoreRead Less
DocketHearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons scheduled for 01/27/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 01/27/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
DocketHearing on Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF BENNETT KERNS scheduled for 09/13/2019 at 01:30 PM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketEx Parte Application FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF BENNETT KERNS; Filed by: PAULA KAVALIS (Plaintiff); As to: LEE RODRIGUEZ (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 06/10/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/04/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk CourthouseRead MoreRead Less
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: PAULA KAVALIS (Plaintiff); As to: LEE RODRIGUEZ (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: PAULA KAVALIS (Plaintiff); As to: LEE RODRIGUEZ (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by: PAULA KAVALIS (Plaintiff); As to: LEE RODRIGUEZ (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: 19STLC05484 Hearing Date: January 27, 2020 Dept: 25
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
(CCP § 418.10)
Defendant Lee Rodriguez’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is GRANTED. The service of Summons and Complaint on Defendant is hereby QUASHED.
On June 7, 2019, Plaintiff Paula Kavalis (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract against Defendant Lee Rodriguez (“Defendant”). The action stems from an oral contract entered into by the parties on or about June 19, 2017 for the sale of a vehicle located in Texas. The vehicle was advertised on Craigslist for the Houston area and was to be shipped to California.
On September 13, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order extending time for service of the summons and complaint because she was having difficulty locating Defendant, whom she believed resided in Texas. (9/13/19 Order.)
On October 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a proof of service, which appears to be on a form used in Texas, indicating Defendant was personally served by Deputy Perri Marsh on September 20, 2019. (10/08/19 Proof of Service.)
On November 22, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss Action (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed.
II. Legal Standard & Discussion
“A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one of the following purposes: (1) [t]o quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a).) A defendant has 30 days after the service of the summons to file a responsive pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 412.20, subd. (a)(3).) (Italics added.)
Here, Defendant brought the instant Motion over two months after he was personally served with the Summons and Complaint. Defendant argues he acted diligently under the circumstances and thus good cause exists for the Court to allow this Motion beyond the 30-day deadline to file a responsive pleading. (Mot., p. 9-10.) Specifically, he states that, as a Texas resident, he did not know when a response was due under California law. (Mot., Rodriguez Decl., ¶ 8.) He also states he began looking for an attorney in California “as quickly as [he] could” while running his business and supporting his family, and retained one soon after receiving a referral. (Id.) The Court finds this constitutes good cause and thus turns to the merits of the Motion.
Defendant argues he has insufficient contacts with the state to properly subject him to the jurisdiction of California courts. (Mot., p. 1-2.)
“A motion to quash service of summons lies on the ground that the court lacks personal . . . jurisdiction over the moving party.” (Greener v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1028, 1036, citing to CCP § 418.10.) “A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) “The exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant comports with these Constitutions 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.” (Elkman v. National States Ins. Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1313.) “An essential criterion in all cases is whether the ‘quality and nature’ of the defendant’s activity is such that it is ‘reasonable’ and ‘fair’ to require him to conduct his defense in that state.” (Kulko v. Superior Court of California In and for City and County of San Francisco (1978) 436 U.S. 84, 92.) If a nonresident’s activities are “extensive or wide-ranging” or “substantial, continuous, and systematic” then jurisdiction is warranted. (Elkman v. National States Ins. Co., 173 Cal.App.4th at 1314.) If the activities are not so pervasive, then jurisdiction depends on the “quality and nature of his activity in the forum state as it relates to the particular cause of action. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) In that case, “[a] court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself to the 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. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) (Italics in original.)
Although Defendant is the moving party, the burden of proof is on Plaintiff to demonstrate sufficient minimum contacts exist. (Milhon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710 [“[W]hen jurisdiction is challenged by a nonresident defendant, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that ‘minimum contacts’ exists between defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.”]; see also Floveyor International, Ltd. V. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 793.)
Here, because Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to this Motion, she has not carried her burden to demonstrate sufficient minimum contacts between Defendant and California exist.
The Court additionally finds that Defendant has demonstrated his single contact with California arising from the sale of one vehicle in an advertising that was not directed to California is insufficient to justify an exercise of jurisdiction over him.
Defendant is a resident of Harris County, Texas (Mot., Rodriguez Decl., ¶ 1) and has never lived in, owned property, or done business in California (Id., ¶ 2). In addition, the vehicle Defendant put up for sale was only advertised in the Craigslist internet page for the Houston, Texas area (Id., ¶ 3). Furthermore, Defendant states he is not a motor vehicle dealer (Id., ¶ 3), and that he has never had a website offering vehicles for sale (Id. ¶ 3). Defendant also submits a copy of the Vehicle Inspection and Registration Notice from the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles demonstrating that in 2017, the vehicle was registered in Texas. (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. 2.)
Additionally, Defendant submits a declaration from his employee, Adrian Caballero (“Caballero”), stating that Caballero created the listing for the vehicle on Craigslist, only did so for the Houston area, and was not aware of an advertisement for the vehicle on any other website. (Mot., Caballero Decl., ¶ 3.) Caballero also attaches copies of the listings for the vehicle demonstrating the advertisement for sale of the vehicle was posted on the Craigslist page for the Houston, Texas area. (Id., Exh. 1.)
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.
III. Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED. The service of Summons and Complaint on Defendant is hereby QUASHED.
Moving party to give notice.