Motion to Quash Subpoena (Judge Andrew Banks)


30-2014-00762697
Mackay vs Fallahi

Defendant Maziar Rohani?s motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, pursuant to C.C.P.? 418.10, is DENIED. Plaintiffs MacKay, et al. did not carry their burden of establishing general jurisdiction over defendant Maziar Rohani. See, Vons Companies Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, at 445. But there is sufficient evidence of minimum contacts for purposes of specific jurisdiction over defendant Maziar Rohani. See, Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc. (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th1254, 1258, Gilmore Bank v. Asiatrust New Zealand Ltd. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1558, 1572 and Hall v. LaRonde (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1345. The evidence in this case establishes that defendant Maziar Rohani was an officer or at least affiliated with co-defendant Maz International Trading Corp. (?Maz?), that co-defendant Fallahi represented that defendant Rohani was experienced in the proposed business transactions, that defendant Rohani provided his social security number, address and passport number through co-defendant Fallahi to plaintiff MacKay so plaintiff MacKay could open a trust account at Bank of America in California, and that defendant Rohani was a signatory on this trust account established by plaintiff MacKay. This is sufficient for purposes of specific jurisdiction. The case of FDIC v. British-American Ins. Co.relied on by defendant Rohani is factually and legally distinguishable as the primary holding by the FDIC court was a lack of any purposeful availment, and that there was only a wire transaction through Bank of America in the FDICcase. In contrast, the Bank of America trust account in this case was specifically set up by plaintiff MacKay as the behest of defendants, which constitutes purposeful availment directed at a California resident, with the trust account established at a Bank of America branch in California. In addition, the evidence, particularly the evidentiary e-mails and associated documents submitted by plaintiffs MacKay, et al. contradict defendant Rohani?s claim that his involvement was limited to simple establishment of a bank account at Bank of America. Defendant Rohani is to respond to plaintiffs? first amended complaint within the time permitted by code. Moving party to give notice.