Court Opinion

ID: 9881145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-29 19:04:15.185276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:59:10.490355
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/29/23 J.D.F. v. Crawford 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

 J.D.F.,                                                         B321170

        Plaintiff and Appellant,                                 Los Angeles County
                                                                 Super. Ct. No. 21STCP03057
        v.

 DENNIS CYRIL CRAWFORD,

        Defendant and Respondent.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. Gregory Keosian, Judge. Affirmed.
     Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, Salar Atrizadeh; Jeff Lewis
Law, Jeffrey Lewis and Sean C. Rotstan for Plaintiff and
Appellant.
     Mazur & Mazur and Janice R. Mazur for Defendant and
Respondent.
                        **********
       Plaintiff and appellant J.D.F. contends the trial court erred
in granting defendant’s Code of Civil Procedure1 section 418.10
motion to quash. Plaintiff argues the evidence established
personal jurisdiction over defendant and respondent Dennis Cyril
Crawford (also known as Yuan Xun). In the alternative, plaintiff
contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff
jurisdictional discovery. We disagree. Not only did plaintiff fail
to serve defendant with the summons in this action, but
plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to meet his burden of showing
personal jurisdiction over defendant if he had been served. The
trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying jurisdictional
discovery where plaintiff failed to adequately raise the issue
below. We therefore affirm.
       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       We limit our recitation of the facts to those relevant to the
issues on appeal.
1.     The Parties
       Plaintiff is a United States citizen of Chinese descent who
frequently travels internationally for work and for personal
purposes. He claims to live in Los Angeles with his parents, but
the record does not bear this out.
       To support his claim of Los Angeles residency, plaintiff
cites to four documents: his verified complaint and his and each
of his parents’ declarations in support of his opposition to
defendant’s motion to quash.
       His verified complaint alleges that he was, at all times
relevant, “an individual residing in Los Angeles.” But his
declaration belies this claim. Plaintiff declares he “view[s]

1     All undesignated statutory references are to the Code of
Civil Procedure.

                                 2
[him]self” as a California resident because his parents moved to
California in 2018. His parents live in Newport Coast—a
community in Orange County, not Los Angeles County. His
credit card statements are sent to his parents’ address in
California, which he calls his only “permanent mailing address”
in the world. He states his parents have bank accounts, pay
taxes, and are registered to vote in California, but makes no
corresponding claims as to himself.
       In their declarations, his parents echo that, aside from his
parents’ address where they moved in 2018, plaintiff “has had no
other permanent residences . . . for the past four years since he
traveled to Beijing, China in 2017 to pursue employment
opportunities” and his parents’ home “is where Plaintiff would
reside if/when he returns to the United States.”
       Not only does plaintiff’s evidence fail to establish he has
ever lived in California, it fails to establish he has ever even been
here. The only indication that he has been to California is that
his declaration purports to have been executed in Los Angeles.
But his parents’ declarations make clear that he was not in the
United States on the day it was signed. Moreover, his credit card
statements from the preceding month show he was in Hong
Kong. They include charges at a restaurant and an optician in
Hong Kong, among other charges in Hong Kong dollars.
       As to defendant, he is the founder and operator of an entity
called Sino American Reunion (SAR). The record establishes he
has never been to California. He denies living in China but does
not say where he lives—except to say generally that he now lives
in “Asia.”

                                  3
2.     SAR
       SAR is a separate entity from defendant, whose form
plaintiff does not identify. SAR’s purpose is to provide assistance
to persons of Chinese descent born outside of China who desire to
move to China. SAR operates through its own website and other
means of online communication. Defendant operates SAR’s
website and is an active participant in its various online and
social media communities. SAR has a five-member steering
committee and one of its members goes to college in California.
       SAR’s website states that its material is “largely aimed at
second-generation American citizens of Chinese heritage.” SAR’s
website states that a large number of East Asian immigrants and
Chinese Americans live in California. Plaintiff offers the
following statistics to substantiate this: California is the state
with the largest “Asian population,” at 6.7 million, followed by
New York (1.9 million), Texas (1.6 million), New Jersey
(1 million) and Washington (0.9 million). Together, these states
are home to 55 percent of the “Asians” in the United States.
Plaintiff’s statistics do not provide a breakdown of the “Asian”
population in these states by national origin.
       SAR’s intended audience is not limited to Americans,
however. A SAR-operated “Discord server in the Reddit
subcommunity ‘r/chineseamerican’ ” offers content “for CHINESE
DIASPORA users: Chinese Americans, Chinese Canadians,
Chinese British, Chinese Australians, Hong Kong HK
Americans/Canadians/etc., Taiwanese Americans/Canadians/etc.,
basically people of Chinese ancestry living outside the Greater
China Area.”
       Discord is a company “based in California.” Plaintiff
presents no evidence that any of the other websites or services

                                 4
plaintiff alleges defendant and SAR used is based in California.
SAR’s domain is hosted by a Colorado company, another Colorado
company provides a related service, SAR’s server is provided by a
New York company, and defendant used another web hosting
company based in Oregon.
3.     Allegations of the Operative Complaint
       Plaintiff met defendant online and met him in person in
Beijing, China, in late 2017. According to the complaint, at the
time of their meeting, defendant sought to exploit plaintiff’s
education and professional background to advance defendant’s
efforts to promote SAR.
       Though plaintiff’s role with SAR is unclear, his allegations
indicate he had some involvement at some point, because in 2018
he told defendant “he no longer wanted to participate in SAR.”
This prompted defendant to begin a campaign of stalking and
harassment against plaintiff, including public and private
communications to third parties that plaintiff claims were
defamatory or otherwise tortious.
       Much, but not all, of defendant’s alleged conduct involved
private communications between defendant and plaintiff alone.
As to communications with third parties, at one point defendant
discussed the prospect of an in-person meeting in Hong Kong
between plaintiff’s “business contacts” and defendant. Plaintiff
asserts these “business contacts” were “based in California” at
the time, and defendant knew this because, when scheduling a
call with them months earlier, he acknowledged the time
difference between his location and California.
       Defendant falsely presented plaintiff as being affiliated
with SAR, using his “personal profile and professional credentials
to recruit new members for [SAR] to his commercial benefit,” and

                                 5
posted online without plaintiff’s permission a personal essay
plaintiff had written and other personal information about
plaintiff.
      In 2021, plaintiff demanded defendant to stop publicizing
his personal information and using his essay. Defendant refused.
Plaintiff retained counsel who reiterated plaintiff’s demand to
defendant in writing. Defendant still refused to comply and
continued to harass plaintiff. He called plaintiff a “liar” and
“coward” in SAR’s Discord chat group and urged its members to
harass plaintiff. He also started a new website about plaintiff in
the guise of a “fan page” that posted more of plaintiff’s personal
information, including that he was in Hong Kong.
4.    The Proceedings Below
      Plaintiff sued defendant and SAR in Los Angeles Superior
Court in September 2021. SAR is not a party to this appeal.
Plaintiff never filed a proof of service of the summons or
complaint and does not claim to have served defendant with
those documents. Plaintiff did, however, attempt to serve
defendant with a motion for a protective order at an address in
China. His proof of service stated that this was accomplished by
“regular United States Mail.”
      Defendant specially appeared to contest service of the
motion to quash “and any [s]ummons and [c]omplaint.”
Defendant argued he was entitled to have the court quash service
both because he was never served with the summons and
complaint and, even if he had been, defendant would not be
subject to personal jurisdiction in California. As to the latter
ground, defendant denied having any “constitutionally minimum
contacts whatsoever with the State of California.”

                                6
       Plaintiff opposed defendant’s motion to quash. His
opposition rested primarily on the notion that he himself is a
California resident. Plaintiff also asserted there was “evidence
indicating” he worked in California, but his only jobs referenced
in the opposition were in China. The opposition said little about
defendant’s purported contacts with California aside from his
contacts with plaintiff. Plaintiff’s declarations in support of his
opposition contained substantial factual matter not referenced in
his opposition, including information about SAR’s website, its
content, and intended audience discussed above.
       The trial court granted defendant’s motion to quash. First,
it found plaintiff had not served defendant with the summons
and complaint. Second, it concluded that defendant’s contacts
with California were inadequate to support the court’s exercise of
jurisdiction in any event. The court denied plaintiff’s motion for
additional time to conduct jurisdictional discovery because
plaintiff failed to demonstrate such discovery was likely to lead to
facts establishing jurisdiction.
       Plaintiff timely appealed.
                           DISCUSSION
1.     The Trial Court Did Not Err in Granting Defendant’s
       Motion to Quash
      a.    Section 418.10
       Section 418.10 provides that a defendant may move to
quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction over
him. A court lacks jurisdiction over a defendant who was not
effectively served with a summons. (MJS Enterprises v. Superior
Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 555, 557 (MJS) [“A summons is the
process by which a court acquires personal jurisdiction over a
defendant in a civil action”].) A court also lacks jurisdiction over

                                 7
a defendant who does not have constitutionally sufficient contacts
with the forum. (International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945)
326 U.S. 310, 316 (International Shoe).)
        When a defendant moves to quash for lack of personal
jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating
facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. Where the defendant
claims a defect in service, the plaintiff must present facts to show
effective service of process. (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co.
(1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439–1440.) Where the defendant
claims constitutionally insufficient contacts with the forum to
support jurisdiction, the plaintiff must present facts showing the
defendant had enough minimum contacts with the state to make
it fair and reasonable to subject the defendant to the jurisdiction
of the California courts. (Burdick v. Superior Court (2015)
233 Cal.App.4th 8, 17 (Burdick).) Once evidence showing
minimum contacts with the forum state is established, “ ‘it
becomes the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the exercise
of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Vons
Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 449
(Vons).)
        b.    Standard of review
      When the evidence pertaining to jurisdiction is undisputed,
whether the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction is a
legal question subject to de novo review. (Burdick, supra,
233 Cal.App.4th at p. 17.) When the evidence is disputed, we
accept the trial court’s resolution of factual issues, draw all
reasonable inferences in support of the trial court’s order, and
review the trial court’s determination of factual issues for
substantial evidence. (Ibid.) Thus, we independently review
whether jurisdiction exists based on the facts which are

                                 8
undisputed and those resolved by the court in favor of the
prevailing party. (Ibid.)
      c.    Defendant was not served with the summons.
       Plaintiff does not contest the trial court’s finding that he
never served defendant with the summons in this action.
Instead, he calls his failure to serve the summons a “[r]ed
[h]erring in [l]ight of the [s]ervice of the [m]otion for [p]rotective
[o]rder.” Plaintiff is wrong. Without effective service of the
summons, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over defendant, and
defendant’s motion to quash was properly granted on that basis.
(See MJS, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d at p. 557 [“Notice of the
litigation does not confer personal jurisdiction absent substantial
compliance with the statutory requirements for service of
summons”]; see also Tri-State Mfg. Co. v. Superior Court of Los
Angeles County (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 442, 444 [noncompliance
with statutes governing service of summons adequate basis for
quashing service].) The motion was properly granted for
plaintiff’s failure to serve defendant with a summons.
       d.     Defendant’s contacts with California are
              inadequate to support jurisdiction.
       Even if plaintiff had served defendant with the summons
and complaint, we agree with the trial court that defendant’s
contacts with California would not suffice to support the exercise
of personal jurisdiction over him.
       Under section 410.10, California courts “may exercise
jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of
this state or of the United States.” The United States
Constitution allows a state to exercise jurisdiction over a
nonresident defendant if the defendant has sufficient “minimum
contacts” with the forum such that “maintenance of the suit does

                                  9
not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.’ ” (International Shoe, supra, 326 U.S. at p. 316.)
Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. (Vons,
supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 445.) Only specific jurisdiction is relevant
here because plaintiff does not argue the trial court had general
jurisdiction over defendant.
       “The inquiry whether a forum State may assert specific
jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant ‘focuses on “the
relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the
litigation.” ’ ” (Walden v. Fiore (2014) 571 U.S. 277, 283–284.)
The exercise of jurisdiction is permissible only if each of the
following is satisfied: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed
himself of forum benefits with respect to the matter in
controversy; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the
defendant’s contacts with the forum; and (3) the exercise of
jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.
(Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269
(Pavlovich).) Because we conclude plaintiff’s evidence was
inadequate to show purposeful availment we do not consider the
other requirements.
       Ordinarily, the purposeful availment inquiry focuses on the
defendant’s intent. The defendant must have purposefully and
voluntarily directed 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.
(Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 269.) Thus, purposeful
availment occurs where a nonresident defendant purposefully
directs his activities at residents of the forum, purposefully
derives benefit from his activities in the forum, creates a
“substantial connection” with the forum, deliberately engages in

                                 10
significant activities within the forum, or has created continuing
obligations between himself and residents of the forum.
(Swenberg v. dmarcian, Inc. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 280, 294–295.)
This avoids subjecting a defendant to jurisdiction solely as a
result of “random,” “fortuitous,” or “attenuated” contacts. (Id. at
p. 295.)
       Plaintiff argues the purposeful availment prong is satisfied
here based on a test commonly used in the defamation context,
even though none of his claims is for defamation. This test is
known as the “effects test.” (Yue v. Yang (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th
539, 547 (Yue).) “Under this test, intentional conduct occurring
elsewhere may give rise to jurisdiction in California where it is
calculated to cause injury in California. The defendant must
expressly aim or target his conduct toward California, with the
knowledge that his intentional conduct would cause harm in the
forum.” (Ibid.)
       Plaintiff rests his entire purposeful availment argument on
Yue, which states that “specific jurisdiction may be established
under the effects test where a defendant sends ‘California-
focused’ social media messages ‘directly’ to California residents
‘with knowledge the recipients [are] California residents’ for the
alleged purpose of causing reputational injury there.” (Yue,
supra, 62 Cal.App.5th at p. 547.) Plaintiff’s efforts to analogize
Yue fail.
       In Yue, the nonresident defendant communicated directly
with the plaintiff, who lived in California, and posted defamatory
messages about him on a website owned and operated by another
California resident with a California audience. The defendant
threatened to travel to San Francisco to confront and bully the
plaintiff, and he told other California residents he had arrived in

                                11
California and asked them to join him. (Yue, supra,
62 Cal.App.5th at pp. 547–548.) “Together, this evidence
demonstrated [the defendant’s] ‘suit-related conduct created a
substantial connection between [the defendant] and California.’ ”
(Id. at p. 548.)
        Unlike the plaintiff in Yue¸ the trial court concluded
plaintiff was not a California resident. Again on appeal, plaintiff
focuses on his own purported California residency without
explaining how that matters in deciding the question of personal
jurisdiction over defendant. Plaintiff’s primary argument is that
the trial court lacked substantial evidence to conclude plaintiff
was not a California resident. As the party with the burden of
proof below, the question is not one of substantial evidence to
support a finding but whether his evidence was
“ ‘(1) “uncontradicted and unimpeached” and (2) “of such a
character and weight as to leave no room for a judicial
determination that it was insufficient to support a finding.” ’ ”
(Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. v. County of Kern (2013)
218 Cal.App.4th 828, 838.)
        Plaintiff contends his assertion of residency was
undisputed. But merely asserting residency is insufficient to
establish it. Rather, the claim must be supported by probative
facts. (Bernou v. Bernou (1911) 15 Cal.App. 341, 345–346.)
Plaintiff’s probative facts do not compel the conclusion plaintiff
was sufficiently present in or otherwise connected to California to
be a resident by any measure.
        Plaintiff’s evidence of his connection to California
establishes only that he uses his parents’ address in California as
his mailing address. Contrary to his assertion in briefing that he
attested he lives with his parents in California and his parents

                                12
declared he lives in California, too, the declarations say no such
thing. None states he has ever lived in California. None even
states he has ever been to California. His parents’ contacts with
California are irrelevant to whether plaintiff has any presence in
the state. Plaintiff’s and his parents’ declarations establish that
he went to China in 2017, before his parents moved to California
in 2018, and he does not claim to have been to California since
then. During that time, he worked for at least two companies in
China and has moved around to other places, none of which
plaintiff claims was California.
       The only other California connections plaintiff argues show
purposeful availment are: (1) defendant knowingly arranged a
call with plaintiff’s “business contacts” in California;
(2) defendant “expressly targeted” California for recruitment to
SAR; and (3) defendant used services from Discord, which is
based in California. These contacts, to the extent reflected in the
record, are too insubstantial to amount to purposeful availment.
       As for the call with the “business contacts” when they were
in California, plaintiff makes no claim based on the content of
that call. The only evidence about what transpired on that call is
that plaintiff was on the call with defendant while they were both
in Asia—plaintiff’s written messages about the call confirm he
was in the same time zone as defendant.
       Plaintiff’s complaint does include allegations that
defendant wrongfully communicated with the same business
contacts a few months later in a group chat with plaintiff. But
this communication lacks any connection to California except
that some of the recipients were “based in” California at the time.
There is no evidence that defendant’s communication with
plaintiff’s California “business contacts” otherwise related to

                                13
California, much less that they had a “California focus.” In fact,
the evidence is to the contrary: the purportedly wrongful
communication expressly addressed the prospect of the “business
contacts” meeting plaintiff in Hong Kong. Plaintiff was
apparently in Hong Kong at the time and, in any event, does not
claim he was in California. Under the Yue analysis, defendant’s
communications with plaintiff and the “business contacts” about
a meeting in Hong Kong had a Hong Kong focus, not a “California
focus.” (See Yue, supra, 62 Cal.App.5th at pp. 547–548
[communications between nonresident defendant, resident
plaintiff, and other California residents pertaining to conduct
within California had “California focus”].)
      As to the assertion that defendant “expressly targeted”
California for recruitment to SAR, this is based solely on evidence
that many people of Chinese origin, one characteristic of SAR’s
target audience, live in California. We are unpersuaded that this
amounts to “express target[ing]” of California. California has the
largest population of any state in the United States. Its size
alone cannot confer jurisdiction over nonresidents who post
information on the Internet. Plaintiff offers evidence that
California has a disproportionately large “Asian” population. If
we accept plaintiff’s evidence of “Asian” populations by state as a
proxy for persons of Chinese origin, the same evidence shows
other populous states in our nation also have a large population
of persons of Chinese origin, and California amounts for less than
a third of all such persons in the United States. That an
audience exists in California does not establish that the audience
was specifically targeted among the various other states in which
an audience also exists.

                                14
       Rather, the evidence shows SAR sought audiences
wherever they might be living outside of China. Its website says
its “material is largely aimed at second-generation American
citizens of Chinese heritage.” (Italics added.) Its Discord site
invites participation by “people of Chinese ancestry living
[anywhere] outside the Greater China Area.” (Italics added.)
Plaintiff offers no evidence SAR’s content is tailored to a
California audience, limited in its access to California residents,
or even that it has a significant California following. Again, this
is different than Yue, where plaintiff offered evidence that the
site where defendant posted his allegedly defamatory statements,
which was run by a California resident (Yue, supra,
62 Cal.App.5th at p. 543), “had a California audience, and that
California residents read the allegedly defamatory postings” (id.
at p. 549).
       As to defendant’s use of the California-based Discord web
service, this contact is incidental. California is home to many
social media companies. Plaintiff offers no authority that a
defendant’s mere use of a California-based social media platform
to defame a plaintiff is material to the question of a California
court’s jurisdiction over the defendant. There is no evidence that
Discord’s operator viewed, participated in, or had any interest in
defendant’s communications about plaintiff. In contrast, in Yue,
the defendant posted about the plaintiff on a California-based
web platform that competed with the plaintiff’s own
California-based web platform and the owner of the competing
web-based platform encouraged and participated in the
defendant’s attacks on the plaintiff. (Yue, supra, 62 Cal.App.5th
at p. 543.)

                                15
2.    The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in
      Denying Plaintiff’s Request for Jurisdictional
      Discovery.
      “A plaintiff attempting to assert jurisdiction over a
nonresident defendant is entitled to an opportunity to conduct
discovery of the jurisdictional facts necessary to sustain its
burden of proof. [Citation.] In order to prevail on a motion for a
continuance for jurisdictional discovery, the plaintiff should
demonstrate that discovery is likely to lead to the production of
evidence of facts establishing jurisdiction.” (In re Automobile
Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 127.)
      The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether
to grant a continuance to allow for jurisdictional discovery and
such a ruling “will not be disturbed in the absence of manifest
abuse.” (Beckman v. Thompson (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 481, 487;
accord, In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II, supra,
135 Cal.App.4th at p. 127.)
      Here, the trial court denied plaintiff’s request to take
jurisdictional discovery for plaintiff’s failure to even argue that
discovery would be likely to uncover evidence of sufficient
contacts to establish jurisdiction. We find no abuse of discretion
in that determination. In his opposition, plaintiff requested
discovery based on the bare assertions that “discovery is likely to
produce evidence of additional California contacts by Defendant
relating to this legal action,” and that “[i]t’s certainly arguable
that further discovery would likely lead to the production of
evidence establishing jurisdiction.” Without specifying what facts
plaintiff expected to find and how they would be relevant to his
claims that defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in
California, there can be no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s
conclusion that plaintiff waived the issue.

                                16
                         DISPOSITION
      We affirm the trial court’s order granting defendant’s
motion to quash and denying plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional
discovery. Costs on appeal are awarded to defendant.

                        GRIMES, J.

      WE CONCUR:

                        STRATTON, P. J.

                        WILEY, J.

                                17