Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati

He does not rent and has never rented any real property in California. (Id., ¶ 7.) He does not own and has never owned any interest in any business that has owned property in the state of California. He does not own and has never owned any interest in any business that

34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 11/14/2023 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Cross Complaint in Department 54

has rented any offices and/or real property in the state of California. He has never lived in the state of California. (Id., ¶¶ 8-9.)

“[W]hen jurisdiction is challenged by a non-resident defendant, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that ‘minimum contacts’ exist between defendants and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.” (Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710.) “Minimum Contacts” means the relationship between the nonresident and the forum state is such that exercise of jurisdiction does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” under the U.S.

Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. (International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316.) Jurisdictional facts must be proven by competent evidence and an unverified pleading has no value. (Id.) “The plaintiff must do more than merely allege jurisdictional facts; the plaintiff must provide affidavits or other authenticated documents demonstrating competent evidence of jurisdictional facts.” (BBA Aviation PLC v. Superior Court (2013) 190 Cal.App.4th 421, 428-429.)

A nonresident defendant may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum state if his or her contacts are "substantial, continuous and systematic." (Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. (1952) 342 U.S. 437, 446-447; see Vons v. Seabest Food Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 446, 452.) In such circumstances, a non-resident can be sued in the forum state even where the lawsuit is not based on his or her forum related activities.

A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of [the] defendant's contacts with the forum; and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with 'fair play and substantial justice.'" (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269.)

Here, based on the moving papers and Ghyasi’s declaration, Ghyasi lacks the minimum contacts necessary to support a finding of general or specific jurisdiction.

Having failed to oppose the motion, Esmati cannot meet his burden to demonstrate the minimum contacts necessary to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Ghyasi. Accordingly, the motion to quash is GRANTED. Ghyasi’s request for dismiss the cross-complaint without prejudice as to him is also GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. § 581(h).)

Having granted the motion to quash, the Court need not address Ghyasi’s argument regarding defective service of summons and complaint.

This minute order is effective immediately. Ghyasi shall submit a formal order and judgment of dismissal without prejudice against him pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 11/14/2023 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Cross Complaint in Department 54

Moving party has indicated the incorrect address in its notice of motion. The correct address for Department 54 of the Sacramento County Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento California 95814. Moving party shall notify responding party(ies) immediately.

Moving counsel’s notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact Esmati and advise him of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact Esmati prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 11/14/2023 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Cross Complaint in Department 54

10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.