Faulkmer, Steven v. MCVDB

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. The motion is granted without leave to amend because plaintiff is unable to cure his untimely complaint as the statute of limitations has passed.

18. S-CV-0056771 Hammick, James Hunter v. Vernon, Jeffrey Jace

Specially Appearing Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff and defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted.

Ruling on Motion

Specially appearing defendants RentDue Capital Fund 2 LLC, Rentdue Capital LLC, Jeffrey Jace Vernon and Ann Vernon move to quash service of summons based on lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Previously, the court granted plaintiff leave to engage in limited discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction and permitted supplemental briefing.

Motion to Quash

A defendant may move to quash service of summons based on a lack of personal jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction over it, the burden shifts to plaintiff to establish “by a preponderance of the evidence that minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction. (Elkman v. National States Ins. Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1312-13.) Plaintiffs meet their burden to establish minimum contacts exist to impose personal jurisdiction by providing “specific evidentiary facts, through affidavits and other authenticated documents, sufficient to allow the court to independently conclude whether jurisdiction is appropriate and cannot rely on allegations in an unverified complaint or vague and conclusory assertions of ultimate facts.” (Swenberg v.

Dmarcian, Inc. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 280, 291.) If plaintiffs meet their burden, the burden shifts back to defendants to “demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” (Buchanan v. Soto (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1362.)

Minimum Contacts

Plaintiff argues minimum contacts based on (1) defendants solicited plaintiff, a California resident, while he was located in California; (2) plaintiff wired investment funds from California banks; (3) defendants transmitted investment updates, reports, and other communications into California; and (4) plaintiff suffered economic injury in California as a direct result of defendants’ forum-directed conduct. (Pl. Supp Opp’n at 3.) Plaintiff states defendants’ own records confirm three separate subscription agreements were executed by plaintiff from California over the course of several months.

The first agreement reflects that defendant Vernon executed from Zapopan, Mexico, while subsequent agreements reflect defendant Vernon executing from Utah and Arizona. (Pl. Supp Opp’n at 3, Exh. Z.) Plaintiff states the execution of three separate agreements over several months establishes that defendants created continuing obligations with a California resident. Plaintiff argues this constitutes purposeful availment because defendants knowingly entered into and maintained an ongoing business relationship directed toward California. (Pl.

Supp Opp’n at 4 citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462 and Hall v. LaRonde (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1347-48.) Plaintiff further argues operational activities, investor communications, administrative operations, and business activities relating to the investment program were conducted primarily from Utah. (Pl. Supp. Exh. O). The fund had no physical office or employees in Wyoming. (Id.)

Specific jurisdiction

California’s long-arm statute extends only “on any basis not inconsistent with the constitution of this state or of the United States.” Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10. Generally, three requirements must be satisfied for California court to exercise specific jurisdiction over nonresident defendant: (1) defendant must purposefully avail themselves of forum benefits; (2) controversy must be related to or arise out of defendant’s forum

Any amended complaint shall be filed and served on or before July 10, 2026.

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Defendants’ motion to strike portions of plaintiff’s complaint is denied as moot in light of the court granting plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.

19. S-CV-0056877 In re the Petition of Furiosi, Marcella

Amended Petition for Compromise of the Claim of Minor

Petitioner Marcella Furiosi petitions for approval of compromise of the claim of minor Beau Podesta. The court issued a notice of intended ruling on May 18, 2026, indicating the petition does not conform to the requirements of the Probate Code and setting this hearing. Since then, no amended petition has been filed for the court’s review.

Petitioner requests relief that does not conform to the requirements of the Probate Code. Petitioner requests that the balance of the settlement funds, after payment of fees, medical expenses, and costs, be deposited in a blocked account at MVB Bank in Fairmont, West Virginia. Pursuant to Probate Code section 3611(b), deposits in a blocked account are to be with “a financial institution in this state . . . .” (Emphasis added.) The proposed bank is not within California.

Because the petition seeks relief not in conformity with the application provisions of the Probate Code it is denied without prejudice. If oral argument is requested, the appearance of the minor at the hearing is waived.

20. S-CV-0057053 CrossCountry Mortgage v. Pankow, Michael

The petition to confirm arbitration award is dropped from calendar in light of the notice of stay of proceedings filed on April 6, 2026. The petition may be re-noticed after the stay has been lifted.

The court on its own motion schedules this matter for an order to show cause hearing regarding status of bankruptcy stay on September 29, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 32.

19