EVER PROSPEROUS REALTY INC. vs PROVIDENT BANK

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME EVER PROSPEROUS MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF CVRI2506872 REALTY INC. vs SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PROVIDENT BANK Tentative Ruling:

The Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by Specially Appearing Defendants Paul Blair Hazan, Victor S. Hazan, and Laura A. Hazan (collectively, "the Hazan Defendants") is granted.

FACTUAL FINDINGS

Based on the declarations submitted by the moving parties, the Court finds the following facts:

1. Victor S. Hazan resides in the State of Maryland. He owns no property, maintains no bank accounts, and conducts no business within the State of California. He has never met, telephoned, emailed, or texted any representative of Plaintiff Ever Prosperous Realty, Inc., including Evelyn Wong or Kuei Shen.

2. Paul Blair Hazan resides in the State of New Jersey. He owns no property, has no bank accounts, and conducts no business in California. He has had no meetings or communications of any kind with Plaintiff’s representatives.

3. Laura A. Hazan resides in the State of Maryland. She owns no property, has no bank accounts, and conducts no business in California. She also declares she has had no contact with any representative of the Plaintiff.

4. The Hazan Defendants deny any involvement with entities mentioned in the litigation, such as Proventure Capital, Timeless Funding, or Louz Enterprise, Inc., and deny taking or receiving any funds from the Plaintiff.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10(a)(1), a defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over them. Once a defendant files a motion to quash, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the court has jurisdiction over the moving defendant, as held in Bolkiah v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 984, 991; ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198, 209-210.

California’s long-arm statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10, authorizes courts to exercise jurisdiction "on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States". Due process requires that a nonresident defendant have "minimum contacts" with the forum state such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not

offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice," a standard established in International Shoe Co. v. State of Wash. (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316. General Jurisdiction

As noted in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (2017) 582 U.S. 255, 262, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction over an individual is the individual’s domicile. Here, the Hazan Defendants are domiciled in Maryland and New Jersey. There is no evidence they have "continuous and systematic" affiliations with California that would render them essentially "at home" here (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 138-139). Consequently, the Court cannot exercise general jurisdiction over them.

Specific Jurisdiction

Specific jurisdiction requires that the defendant’s suit-related conduct create a substantial connection with the forum state (Walden v. Fiore (2014) 571 U.S. 277, 284). The relationship must arise out of contacts the defendant himself creates with the forum, not from the unilateral activity of the plaintiff (Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408, 417).

The Hazan Defendants have submitted competent evidence through their declarations that they have no contacts with California related to this litigation. In contrast, the Plaintiff’s Complaint contains a "vague and border-line incomprehensible laundry list of acts" that fail to allege any connection between the Hazan Defendants and the State of California. Because the Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of proving purposeful availment or suit-related contacts, specific jurisdiction is absent.

Lack of Opposition

The Court further notes that the Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion. Under Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20, a failure to oppose may be deemed an abandonment of the issue. The Court considers the lack of opposition to be an admission that the motion is meritorious.