Seacoast Capital Partners IV L.P. vs. Martin

The Case Management Conference is CONTINUED to December 3, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department C12.

Defendant shall provide notice.

9. Seacoast Capital Partners IV L.P. vs. Martin

25-01473117

1. Demurrer to Amended Cross-Complaint 2. Case Management Conference

DEMURRER AND CMC CONTINUED TO MAY 29, 2026. See ROA 155 10. Hogbin vs. Sengstock

25-01457519

1. Motion to Quash Service of Summons 2. Motion to Strike 3. Case Management Conference

Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint

Defendant Sheila Sengstock’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc. §418.10.) The relevant period during which “minimum contacts” must have existed is when the alleged cause of action arose, and not when the action was commenced. (See Boaz v. Boyle & Co. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 700, 717.) By Defendant’s own admission, there is a sufficient basis for specific personal jurisdiction over her for the claims alleged in this lawsuit. Defendant admits that she had ample contacts with California at the time the alleged causes of action accrued because she admits that she was a resident of California when Plaintiff allegedly loaned her the funds at issue in the First Amended Complaint.

Defendant’s motion argues that she has a lack of contact with Orange County, but for purposes of establishing personal jurisdiction, the relevant inquiry is the nonresident defendant’s contacts with the forum state.

Since there is no reasonable dispute that Defendant had sufficient contact with the state of California such that exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendant is reasonable, there is no basis to grant Defendant’s motion.

Motion to Change Venue to Superior Court of Riverside County

In the alternative, Defendant moves to challenge Plaintiff’s designation of Orange County Superior Court as venue for this action. Code Civ. Proc. §395, subd. (a) governs venue and provides in relevant part: “), “the superior court where the defendants or some of