Specially appearing Defendant Jennifer Box?s motion to quash service of summons is granted.
Evidentiary Objections
Defendant?s objection numbers 1-3 and 5-7 to Mr. Gourde?s declaration are sustained.? Defendant?s objection number 4 to Mr. Gourde?s declaration is overruled.
Defendant?s objection numbers 1, 13-15, and 20 to Mr. Chou?s declaration are sustained. Defendant?s objection numbers 2-12, and 16-19 to Mr. Chou?s declaration are overruled.
The Motion to Quash Service of Summons is Granted
A nonresident defendant may not be called upon to defend in a foreign forum unless he or she has minimal contacts with that state to exercise power over that party. (Hensa v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S. 235, 251.)? The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that a nonresident defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum state to support personal jurisdiction. ?(Aquila, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 570.)? The plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that all jurisdictional requirements are met.? (Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232.)? If the plaintiff establishes that the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.? (Stone v. Texas (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048.)
Personal jurisdiction may be general or specific.? A nonresident defendant may be subject to general jurisdiction if his or her contacts with the forum are substantial, continuous and systematic.? (Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co. (1952) 342 U.S. 437, 445.)
A nonresident defendant may be subject to specific jurisdiction if three requirements are met: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed itself of forum benefits with respect to the matter in controversy; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant?s contacts with the forum; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.? (Burdick v. Superior Court (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 8, 18.)
To determine whether the Court should exercise personal jurisdiction over any individual, the ?proper question is not where the plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect but whether the defendant?s conduct connects him to the forum in a meaningful way.?? (Id. at p. 24 [citing Walden v. Fiore (2014) 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1125].)? To create the minimum contacts necessary to support specific personal jurisdiction in a lawsuit arising out of the posting of a defamatory statement on the Internet, the nonresident defendant must not only have intentionally posted the statements, but the defendant must ?expressly aim or specifically direct his or her intentional conduct at the forum, rather than at a plaintiff who lives there.?? (Burdick v. Superior Court, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 13.)? The Burdick court emphasized ?the exercise of personal jurisdiction must be based upon forum-related acts that were personally committed by the nonresident defendant, not upon the plaintiff?s contacts with the forum or acts committed by codefendants or third parties.?? (Ibid.)
Plaintiff has not provided any evidence to show that Defendant has substantial, continuous or systematic contacts with California.? Defendant has not resided in California since April 2015.? (Box Decl., ? 3.)? Plaintiff offers no evidence to show Defendant resided in California during the relevant time period (July 2016 to the filing of this action) or that Defendant has any contacts with California aside from the conversations with Plaintiff.
Plaintiff?s evidence only shows that Defendant posted on the Internet statements that Plaintiff raped her.? Plaintiff provides no admissible evidence to show that the statements made were directed at California.
In addition, Plaintiff offers no evidence to show that Defendant?s attempt to extort money from him, or her actions to cause him intentional distress, are aimed at California or at California residents other than Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that Defendant has the minimal contacts with California. ?Accordingly, the motion to quash service of summons is granted.
Specially appearing Defendant shall give notice of the ruling.