Franceschi v. Baldwin CA2/8

Filed 8/30/24 Franceschi v. Baldwin CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

ERNEST J. FRANCESCHI, JR., B323870

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21STCV35596 v.

GLORIA BALDWIN,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michelle Williams Court, Judge. Affirmed.

Ernest J. Franceschi, Jr., in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Davis Wright Tremaine, Mary H. Haas, Daniel H. Leigh and Mark C. Burnside for Defendant and Respondent.

_____________________________

SUMMARY Plaintiff Ernest J. Franceschi, Jr. appeals from an order granting defendant Gloria Baldwin’s motion to quash service of the summons and first amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm the order. FACTS Plaintiff sued Christopher Baldwin and his mother, Gloria Baldwin, alleging several causes of action including extortion. Plaintiff, who is an attorney, alleged he had represented Christopher Baldwin in two lawsuits in which Mr. Baldwin’s father funded the upfront payments. Plaintiff alleged Mr. Baldwin, with Ms. Baldwin’s encouragement, refused to settle or mediate the lawsuits, and plaintiff withdrew as counsel. After that, Christopher Baldwin sent an e-mail to plaintiff stating plaintiff failed to provide receipts for the monies paid to him and demanding return of the funds under threat of reporting plaintiff to the IRS and the State Bar. Plaintiff alleged Ms. Baldwin “conspired with, aided and abetted, provided material encouragement to Christopher, and was a driving force behind the extortionate email.” Ms. Baldwin filed a motion to quash service, contending the court lacked both general and specific jurisdiction over her. The motion was accompanied by Ms. Baldwin’s declaration stating, among other things, that her permanent residence is in New Mexico, where she was born and lived her entire life; she is registered to vote in New Mexico; she has never resided in California, does not own or lease property in California, has no bank accounts or mailing address in California, and does not conduct business or have any employees or representatives in California. Ms. Baldwin also stated that she signed a guarantor