AUSTIN DAVIS ROSAS VS. RASIER, LLC ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Wednesday, August 20, 2025, Line 6 [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling]. DEFENDANT MOAWYA YAGOB's MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS.

Defendant Moawya Haroun Yagob's motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted.

When a defendant moves to quash service of process, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. (Zehia v. Superior Court (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 543, 552.) To carry this burden, the plaintiff must do more than merely allege facts; the plaintiff " 'must present evidence sufficient to justify a finding that California may properly exercise jurisdiction over the defendant.' " (Zehia, at p. 552, quoting In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110.) If the plaintiff satisfies the initial burden, then the defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Zehia, at p. 552.)

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate general jurisdiction. "For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual's domicile." (Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011) 564 U.S. 915, 924.) Here, Defendant has had no physical presence, is not domiciled, and has not made a general appearance in California.

Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate specific jurisdiction. "A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) 'the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits' [citation]; (2) 'the "controversy is related to or 'arises out of' [the] defendant's contacts with the forum" ' [citation]; and (3) ' "the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with 'fair play and substantial justice' " ' [citation]." (Anglo Irish Bank Corp., PLC v. Super.

Ct. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 969, 978.) " 'The purposeful availment inquiry . . . focuses on the defendant's intentionality. [Citation.] This prong is only satisfied when the defendant purposefully and voluntarily directs his activities toward the forum so that he should expect, by virtue of the benefit he receives, to be subject to the court's jurisdiction based on' his contacts with the forum." (Id.) "[T]he defendant will only be subject to personal jurisdiction if it has clear notice that it is subject to suit there." (Id. at 979 (internal quotations omitted).) "[T]he mere fact that the out-of-state defendant's conduct has some 'effect' on a California resident is not enough, by itself, to constitute purposeful availment." (Jacqueline B. v.

Rawls Law Group, P.C. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 243, 254.)

Defendant has no other sufficient minimum contacts with California which subject him to California's jurisdiction. (CCP section 410.10.) Although Uber and Rasier, LLC's primary place of business may be California, Defendant conducts his business and ordinary life primarily outside of California. Downloading and using a phone application that was created in another state does not immediately subject every person using this application to one state's jurisdiction. The Uber contract provision provided by Plaintiff as evidence that Defendant submitted to California jurisdiction solely deals with the terms of the agreement and services that Uber provides.

[End of part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling] =(301/JMT) | |