Defendants Singh Organic Soils, LLC and Ken Singh’s motion to quash service of summons based on lack of personal jurisdiction as to the complaint filed by plaintiffs Steve Thacher and Premiere Media Group, Inc. is GRANTED. See, C.C.P. §418.10(a)(1).
A plaintiff bears the burden of proving that a nonresident defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum state to support personal jurisdiction. See, Aquila, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 570. As to general jurisdiction, Defendants presented evidence negating any substantial, continuous and systematic contacts with this forum. See, Vons Companies Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, at 445. Also, general jurisdiction is now limited to a company’s state of incorporation or principal place of business. See, Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 134 S.Ct. 746, 761 to 762 and Martinez v. Aero Caribbean (9th Cir. 2014) 764 F.3d 1062, 1070. It is undisputed that defendant Singh Organic Soils, LLC’s principal place of business is in Tempe, Arizona.
As to specific jurisdiction, in BBA Aviation PLC v. Superior Court (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 421, the court noted that: “Specific jurisdiction exists if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed itself of forum benefits with respect to the matter in controversy; (2) the controversy is substantially related to or arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum; and (3) the assertion of jurisdiction would comport with fair play and justice. (Dorel, supra,134 Cal.App.4th at p. 1274, 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 742; see also Pope v. National Aero Finance Co. (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 709, 719, 33 Cal.Rptr. 889 [the parent corporation’s acts establishing the basis for jurisdiction must be related to the cause of action for which jurisdiction is sought].)” See, BBA Aviation PLC, at 436.
Based on the evidence before this court, there is insufficient evidence that Defendants purposely availed themselves of this forum in relation to sale of the limited liability company at issue. See, Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472 to 473. The Burger King Corp. explained that unilateral action of a plaintiff does not constitute “purposeful availment” on the part of a defendant or defendants. Also, the Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. court explained that purposeful availment focuses on defendants’ intentionality, not plaintiffs’. See, Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Canada ULC (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 591, 602 to 603. Further, there is insufficient evidence that the controversy is related to or arises out of either defendant’s contacts with this forum or any transaction consummated in this forum. See, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1780 and BBA Aviation PLC v. Superior Court (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 421, 435 to 436. The controversy arises out of Plaintiffs’ contact with Arizona and not contacts by Defendants with this forum. Also, the alleged acts of interference by Defendants as to Plaintiffs’ access to the business occurred in Tempe, Arizona.
In light of the ruling on Defendants’ motion to quash service of summons based on lack of jurisdiction, Defendants’ alternative motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens is deemed moot at this time.
Moving parties to give notice.