Court Opinion

ID: 9411420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 19:04:30.110969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:06.677820
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/26/23 Feast American Diners v. Lake Region Restaurants CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FEAST AMERICAN DINERS, LLC,                                          D082260

     Cross-complainant and
Appellant,
                                                                     (Super. Ct. No. MCC2002149)
         v.

LAKE REGION RESTAURANTS, LLC
et al.,

     Cross-defendants and
Respondents.

         APPEAL from order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Raquel
A. Marquez, Judge. Affirmed.
         Rosenstein & Associates, Robert B. Rosenstein and Daniel A.
Thompson for Cross-complainant and Appellant.
         Hahn & Hahn and Laura V. Farber for Cross-defendants and
Respondents.
         Lake Region Restaurants, LLC (Lake Regions), Glenn Beattie and Tina
Beattie moved the superior court to quash a cross-complaint filed against
them by Feast American Diners, LLC (Feast). The trial court granted the
motion, reasoning that Feast had failed to establish that Lake Region and the
Beatties had sufficient minimum contacts with California to establish
personal jurisdiction over them. Feast appeals the trial court’s ruling on the
motion. As we explain, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion and affirm.
              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
                                        I.
              The Underlying Complaint and Cross-complaints
      The facts as set forth in this section are the facts as alleged in the
pleadings. The action centers around a restaurant property in upstate New
York. Over the past several decades, the ownership and the lease interests of
the property had been transferred and reassigned multiple times. In 2015,
Tarasa LLC, a California limited liability company, acquired ownership of
the real property, and Feast, a Delaware corporation, took over the lease for
the property. Pursuant to the lease, Feast operated a Denny’s restaurant on
the Tarasa property from 2015 to 2020.
      In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic struck the United States,
prompting New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to declare a state of
emergency prohibiting all on-premises dining in the state. Soon thereafter,
Feast purportedly closed down the Denny’s restaurant and ceased rent
payments to Tarasa. In late March 2020, Feast gave Tarasa a written notice
purporting to terminate their lease, claiming “frustration of purpose,” “legal
impossibility,” and “unforeseeable events” caused by the pandemic.
      In April 2020, while Feast and Tarasa were communicating regarding
these lease termination issues, Feast reached out to the Beatties to discuss
whether they might be interested in a potential takeover of Feast’s leasehold
interest in the Tarasa restaurant property. The Beatties allegedly negotiated
with Feast individually and as agents of Lake Region. The negotiations
between Feast and the Lake Region ultimately broke down.
                                        2
      For its part, in June 2020, Tarasa sent Feast a notice of termination,
accusing Feast of breach of contract and failure to cure the unpaid rent.
      Tarasa subsequently leased the restaurant property to Lake Region.
      On October 30, 2020, Tarasa filed a complaint in the Superior Court of
California, County of Riverside, against Feast and other defendants (not
relevant here) for breach of contract and declaratory relief.
      Feast filed a cross-complaint and an amended cross-complaint. On
September 3, 2021, Feast filed an unverified second amended cross-complaint
(SACC). The SACC named Tarasa, Lake Region, and the Beatties as cross-
defendants. The SACC asserts various claims against Tarasa, as well as
separate claims against Lake Region and the Beatties (collectively,
respondents) for intentional interference with contractual relations, fraud,
and breach of contract.
      In relevant part, the SACC alleges that the Beatties and Lake Region
interfered with Feast’s contractual relations with Tarasa by “engag[ing] in
conduct that prevented or hindered [Feast]’s performance under [its] [l]ease
[with Tarasa].” According to the SACC, the Beatties and Lake Region
negotiated directly with Tarasa without Feast’s “authoriz[ation],” causing
Tarasa to “abruptly cease[ ]” its lease termination negotiations with Feast.
The Beatties, acting individually and as agents of Lake Region, allegedly
used “sensitive information” about Feast’s “financial conditions” and “loans”
to reach a new lease agreement with Tarasa “at a significant depressed rate,
resulting in lower mitigation dollar amount to Tarasa and increased damages
sought by Tarasa in its Complaint.”
      Feast further claimed the Beatties and Lake Region committed fraud
by “conspir[ing]” with Tarasa to “deceive” Feast into believing they were
engaging in “good faith lease assumption negotiations.” After Feast
“disclose[d] [its] sensitive information,” the Beatties and Lake Region
                                       3
“abruptly ceased” negotiations. Feast also claimed the Beatties and Lake
Region breached “an oral and written agreement” not to disclose Feast’s
“sensitive information.”
                                       II.
                       Motion to Quash Service of Summons
      In October 2021, Lake Region and the Beatties specially appeared in
the cross-action on the SACC and moved to quash service of summons for
lack of personal jurisdiction. The court continued the motion to allow the
parties to conduct discovery into the jurisdiction question. After discovery
was complete, the parties submitted the following evidence in support of their
respective positions on the motion.
A.    Jurisdictional Evidence
      Public records show that Feast was incorporated in Delaware and is a
registered company in California and New York. Lake Region was formed
and registered as a New York company. The Beatties, who act as agents for
Lake Region, declared that Lake Region operated its business solely in New
York and “only sought to lease property” in New York. Lake Region never
owned any property or operated in any state other than New York. Tarasa—
a California limited liability corporation that is registered to do business in
California and New York—is mainly controlled by Majid Mossadeghian, who
lives in California.
      The Beatties declared that they are married and have resided in
Arizona for the past 20 years. Neither of them engaged in any personal
business or owned any assets in California. Mrs. Beattie testified at her
deposition that she managed Lake Region’s properties in New York and
negotiated with Tarasa and Feast on Lake Region’s behalf concerning the
restaurant property.

                                        4
      Around April 14, 2020, while Feast and Tarasa were engaged in their
dispute about the Denny’s lease, Ben Eramya, a Feast representative who
lived in California, called Mr. Beattie to inquire if the Beatties would be
interested in purchasing leasehold interests in Feast’s New York restaurants.
Eramya’s April 2020 emails to Mr. Beattie listed Eramya’s California
business address in the signature line. Mr. Beattie stated Feast asked him
for a proposed lease assumption agreement. On April 19, the general counsel
to Lake Region drafted a proposed agreement containing terms by which
Lake Region would assume a package of 10 leases, including the lease of the
Denny’s restaurant property, from Feast. The proposed agreement listed an
address for Feast in California. Neither Mr. Beattie nor Mrs. Beattie was
named as a party in their personal capacity to the proposed agreement. The
proposed agreement did not contain a choice of law or forum selection clause
subjecting the parties to California law or California as a forum.
      On April 20, Mr. Beattie emailed Eramya the proposed agreement for
Lake Region to assume the New York lease. Lake Region and Feast then
negotiated through their attorneys until April 29, when their negotiations
ultimately broke down and terminated.
      As between Lake Region and Tarasa, Mossadeghian testified he called
Mrs. Beattie from California to inquire about Lake Region leasing the New
York restaurant property directly from Tarasa. Between May and June 2020,
attorneys for Lake Region and Tarasa negotiated the terms of the lease. On
June 30, Mr. Beattie signed an agreement in Arizona on Lake Region’s behalf
to lease the restaurant property from Tarasa. The Beatties were not parties
to the lease. The lease contained a choice-of-law provision subjecting it to
New York law. It required Lake Region to send rent payments to Tarasa’s
California address. The Beatties declared that the restaurant property’s

                                        5
inspection and maintenance services took place in New York and the vendors
of the restaurant were located in New York.
B.    Parties’ Arguments and Trial Court’s Ruling
      Lake Region and the Beatties contend they did not “purposefully avail”
themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within California, Feast’s
cross-claims did not “arise out of” their California contacts, and California’s
exercise of jurisdiction would not be fair to them. In opposition, Feast argued
that Lake Region and the Beatties “have sufficient minimum contacts with
California to support the exercise of jurisdiction.”
      In July 2022, the court granted Lake Region and the Beatties’ motion
to quash, reasoning:
      “Although Lake Region’s lease with Tarasa requires lease
      payments be made in California, along with a few phone calls and
      emails, the contacts were not ‘substantial, continuous and
      systematic.’ The lease was entered in New York, for New York
      property, where all services and maintenance related to the New
      York business were performed in New York. Feast’s newly
      discovered facts merely establish that Lake Region and Tarasa
      negotiated the lease through interstate communications, with
      Tarasa, which entity was in California, and that the individual
      Cross-Defendants had sporadic communications with other
      California residents that seem to be unrelated to this case. Feast
      has not established minimum contacts with California to support
      this Court’s jurisdiction over Cross-Defendants, including the
      individual Beattie Cross-Defendants. None of the cross[-]claims
      arose out of Cross-Defendants’ activities relating to
      California. . . .”
Feast appealed.
                                 DISCUSSION
      Feast contends that California has both general and specific personal
jurisdiction over Lake Region and the Beatties based on its breach of contract
and tort cross-claims against them, because (1) Feast and Tarasa are

                                        6
registered businesses in California; (2) representatives of Feast and Tarasa,
with whom the Beatties communicated about the restaurant property, were
located in California; (3) Lake Region is required to send rent payments to
Tarasa’s California address under the June 30, 2020 lease; and (4) Feast, a
California company, allegedly suffered injuries as a result of Lake Region’s
and the Beatties’ contacts.
                                         I.
                               Standard of Review
      When, as here, a defendant moves to quash service of process on
jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiff “must do more than merely allege
jurisdictional facts.” (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135
Cal.App.4th 100, 110 (In re Automobile).) The plaintiff bears the initial
burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the facts justifying the
exercise of jurisdiction. (Ibid.) It “must provide affidavits and other
authenticated documents in order to demonstrate competent evidence of
jurisdictional facts.” (Ibid.) If this is met, the burden is shifted to the cross-
defendant to demonstrate the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.
(Id. at pp. 110–111.)
      When there is conflicting evidence, we review the trial court’s factual
determinations under the substantial evidence standard (Vons Companies,
Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 449 (Vons)) and resolve all
conflicts “against the appellant and in support of the order.” (Wolfe v. City of
Alexandria (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 541, 546.) This “standard of review applies
to both express and implied findings of fact made by the court in its
statement of decision.” (Ermoian v. Desert Hospital (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th
475, 501.)
      When the evidence does not conflict, the question of jurisdiction is one
of law, which we review de novo. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 449.)
                                         7
                                       II.
                         Trial Court’s Finding of Facts
      In granting the motion to quash, the trial court expressly found the
following facts:
      a. Lake Region’s lease with Tarasa required that lease payments be
made in California.
      b. The lease was entered in New York, for New York property.
      c. All services and maintenance related to the New York business were
performed in New York.
      d. Lake Region and Tarasa negotiated the lease through interstate
communications.
      e. Tarasa was a California entity.
      f. Lake Region and the Beatties had sporadic communications with
other California residents that seem to be unrelated to this case.
      g. None of Feast’s claims arose out of the activities of Lake Region or
the Beatties relating to California.
      Feast asserts that the findings of the trial court are not in dispute.
Respondents contend that the trial court resolved certain factual disputes,
and that those findings were supported by substantial evidence, including the
following facts:
      a. Contrary to Feast’s allegations, Lake Region did not negotiate, enter
into or perform its obligations in California. Respondents contend that the
court resolved this dispute by finding that although interstate
communications were used to negotiate the lease, nonetheless the lease was
entered into in New York, for New York property, with all services and
maintenance for the business to be performed in New York.
      b. Contrary to Feast’s allegations, the Beatties did not act on an
individual basis in its dealings with Tarasa or Feast. Respondents contend
                                        8
that the court resolved this dispute by finding insufficient minimum contacts
to establish personal jurisdiction over the Beatties.
      Because Feast does not dispute the trial court’s findings, we now
consider de novo the jurisdictional issues presented on appeal.
                                        III.
                            General Jurisdiction Principles
      California courts may exercise jurisdiction over nonresidents “on any
basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United
States.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) The exercise of jurisdiction over a
nonresident defendant “comports with requirements of the due process clause
of the federal Constitution ‘if the defendant has such minimum contacts with
the state that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate’ “traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice.” ’ ” (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at
p. 444, italics added.) “Depending upon the extent of a nonresident
defendant’s contacts with the forum state, the defendant may be subject
either to general jurisdiction, or to specific jurisdiction.” (Elkman v. National
States Ins. Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1314 (Elkman).)
                                        IV.
         Feast Fails to Establish California Has General Jurisdiction
      If the nonresident defendant’s contacts in the forum state are
“ ‘substantial, continuous, and systematic,’ ” the defendant may be subject to
California’s general jurisdiction. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 445.) Thus,
the trial court properly considered the connection between Lake Region and
the Beatties with California. “In such a case, ‘it is not necessary that the
specific cause of action alleged be connected with the defendant’s business
relationship to the forum.’ ” (Ibid.)
      “[T]he general jurisdiction analysis [for a corporation] turns on the
nature of the defendant’s continuous corporate operations within a state.”
                                         9
(Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th
215, 222–223.) “The ‘standard for establishing general jurisdiction is “fairly
high,’ [citation] and requires that the defendant’s contacts be of the sort that
approximate physical presence. [Citation.] Factors to be taken into
consideration are whether the defendant makes sales, solicits or engages in
business in the state, serves the state’s markets, designates an agent for
service of process, holds a license, or is incorporated there.’ ” (Elkman, supra,
173 Cal.App.4th at p. 1315, italics omitted.)
      The evidence before the trial court supports its conclusion that Lake
Region’s and the Beatties’ contacts in California were not substantial,
continuous, and systematic. The Beatties attested neither they nor Lake
Region had any businesses in California. Lake Region was not registered to
do business in California. Lake Region, through the Beatties, merely
negotiated with parties that had a connection to California, namely Feast (a
Delaware Corporation, registered to do business in New York and California,
with an agent who worked out of California) and Tarasa (a California Limited
Liability Corporation). It is well-established that “in order to confer general
jurisdiction a defendant must have a business presence in [the forum state].
[Citation.] It is not enough that a corporation do business with [the forum
state].” (Johnston v. Multidata Sys. Int’l Corp. (5th Cir. 2008) 523 F.3d 602,
611; accord Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l Inc. (9th Cir. 2000) 223
F.3d 1082, 1086.) Feast presented no evidence to show either the Beatties or
Lake Region has any business presence in California. Indeed, courts have
rejected assertions of general jurisdiction based on connections to the forum
states far more substantial than here. (See, e.g., Helicopteros Nacionales De
Colombia v. Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408 [holding Texas had no general
jurisdiction over a corporation that purchased over $4 million worth of
helicopters, 80 percent of its fleet, between 1970 and 1977 from a Texas
                                       10
company]; Bird v. Parsons (6th Cir. 2002) 289 F.3d 865, 873–874 [the fact
that defendant had done business with 4,666 Ohio residents through its
website did not show that Ohio had general jurisdiction]; Revell v. Lidov (5th
Cir. 2002) 317 F.3d 467, 471 [no general jurisdiction over nonresident
periodical that never obtained more than 20 internet subscriptions from the
forum state’s residents].)
      We therefore conclude that Feast has failed to establish the Beatties’
and Lake Region’s contacts with California were “the sort that approximate
physical presence” in California. (Elkman, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1315.) Accordingly, neither Lake Region nor the Beatties are subject to
California’s general jurisdiction.
                                        V.
         Feast Fails to Establish California Has Specific Jurisdiction
      If there is no general jurisdiction, California may still exercise specific
jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant 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. (Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35
Cal.4th 1054, 1062.) In examining the quality and nature of the activities in
this state, the focus of the purposeful availment inquiry is on the nonresident
defendant’s “intentionality” and “activities toward” California—not the
plaintiff—such 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 v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269; Floyd J. Harkness
Co. v. Amezcua (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 687, 691.)

                                       11
      Because the analysis of specific jurisdiction here differs depending on
whether it pertains to a contract or tort claim, we consider the issues
separately.
      A.      California Has No Specific Jurisdiction Based on Feast’s Breach-
              of-Contract Claim

      The unverified SACC alleges that during their negotiations with
Tarasa, the Beatties and Lake Region breached an “oral and written” non-
disclosure agreement (NDA) that they had entered into with Feast. However,
nowhere in the lengthy evidentiary submission to the trial court was there
any evidence regarding any such alleged NDA. Further, Feast made no
argument before the trial court regarding any such NDA. The record before
the trial court (and before us) is utterly devoid of a single fact about
California’s connection with the alleged NDA. There are no facts in the
record regarding the location of any negotiations between the parties
concerning any NDA, the alleged terms of such agreement, or when, where or

how the respondents may have breached such agreement.1 We do not
consider the unverified allegations in the SACC. (Mansour v. Superior Court
(1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1750, 1760 [an unverified complaint has “no
evidentiary value” when considering jurisdictional facts].)

1     The briefing before this court similarly omits discussion of the
purported breach of the alleged NDA. Feast’s opening brief only obliquely
refers to the analysis “of minimum contacts in a contract case,” which may be
a reference to its breach of contract claim against respondents. (See In re
Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830 [“We are not
bound to develop appellants’ arguments for them.”].) Giving appellants the
benefit of the doubt, we refrain from concluding that they have abandoned
this argument on appeal. (Orange County Water Dist. v. Alcoa Global
Fasteners, Inc. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 252, 360 [failure to support a point with
“reasoned argument and citations to authority” may be treated as waived].)

                                        12
      Where a contract is alleged to form the basis for a state’s exercise of
specific jurisdiction against an out-of-state defendant who has not consented
to suit in the state, it must be shown that the defendant has purposefully
directed its activities at residents of that state, and the litigation must result
from injuries that arise out of or relate to the defendant’s activities. (Burger
King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472 (Burger King).) “The
unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident
defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State.
The application of that rule will vary with the quality and nature of the
defendant’s activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by
which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting
activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections
of its laws.” (Hanson v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S. 235, 253.) It need not be
shown that a defendant was physically present in the state, see Burger King,
supra, 471 U.S. at p. 476; but “[a] contract with an out-of-state party does not
automatically establish purposeful availment in the other party’s home
forum.” (Goehring v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 894, 907.)
      Thus, we look to see whether Lake Region or the Beatties directed their
activities at California residents, and whether damages from their alleged
breach of an NDA relate to any such activities.
      Here, the record shows no activity of any kind directed toward
California residents in connection with the alleged NDA between Feast and
Lake Region. At most, fairly read, the SACC alleges that the NDA related to
a possible assumption of the Denny’s lease in New York by Lake Region or
the Beatties. But that discussion was initiated by Feast, not by the
respondents. The fact that Lake Region and the Beatties “did not solicit
business in California strongly supports the view that personal jurisdiction
was lacking.” (Malone, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 1440.)
                                        13
      On appeal, Feast asks that in assessing minimum contacts, we consider
the separate negotiations and lease agreement between Lake Region, the
Beatties, and Tarasa. Feast does not explain how negotiations between
different parties for different agreements are relevant under Burger King, or
how a lease agreement with one party has anything to do with an NDA with
a different party, or how those different agreements can establish the
purposeful availment element. But even assuming that these factors are
relevant or related, we conclude that the court correctly granted the motion
to quash as to the cause of action alleging breach of the NDA.
      The lease agreement between Tarasa and Lake Region for the lease of
New York real property was signed by Mr. Beattie on Lake Region’s behalf in
Arizona. The maintenance and inspection services of the restaurant property
underlying the lease would occur in New York. Lake Region relied on local
vendors in New York to operate the restaurant. It also contained a choice-of-
law clause subjecting the parties to New York Law. (See T.A.W.
Performance, LLC v. Brembo, S.p.A. (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 632, 646 [holding
a choice-of-law clause is relevant to determine whether there was purposeful
availment].) The fact that the Beatties or Lake Region “negotiated the lease
through interstate communications,” as found by the trial court, does not
constitute purposeful direction of its activities toward California residents or
purposeful availment of any privilege of conducting activities within
California.
      Further, there is no evidence that Lake Region or the Beatties did
anything in California that caused Feast to suffer injuries from an alleged
breach of the NDA.
      Thus, Feast has failed to meet its burden to establish facts that would
support California’s exercise of specific jurisdiction over Lake Region or the

                                       14
Beatties as to its breach of contract claim. (See In re Automobile, supra, 135
Cal.App.4th at p. 110.)
      B.    California Has No Specific Jurisdiction Based on Feast’s Tort
            Claims

      Where a claim sounds in tort, we employ the “effects” test derived from
Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783 (Calder). “ ‘Under Calder, personal
jurisdiction can be based upon: “(1) intentional actions (2) expressly aimed at
the forum state (3) causing harm, the brunt of which is suffered—and which
the defendant knows is likely to be suffered—in the forum state.” ’ ” (Jewish
Def. Org. v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1057.) “The proper
question is not where the plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect
but whether the defendant’s conduct connects him to the forum in a
meaningful way.” (Walden v. Fiore (2014) 571 U.S. 277, 290, italics added.)
      The gravamen of Feast’s tort claims against Lake Region and the
Beatties (fraud and intentional interference with contract) is that during
respondents’ lease negotiations with Feast, they obtained sensitive
information about Feast, and then they used that information about Feast to
benefit themselves in their negotiations with Tarasa for the same lease, to
Feast’s detriment. Thus, we must consider what intentional actions were
“expressly aimed” at California and whether Feast suffered harm in
California through respondents’ meaningful connections to California.
      It is undisputed that Feast initially reached out to Mr. Beattie to
explore the possibility of taking over the restaurant property in New York.
Lake Region and the Beatties neither sought nor engaged in any business in
California. Although Feast is incorporated in Delaware and registered to do
business in New York and California, and although Feast’s agent Eramya
communicated with the Beatties about the New York lease from his location
in California, the object of the negotiations was the New York restaurant

                                       15
property. Respondents did not take any actions that were “expressly aimed”
at California. The brunt of any injuries Feast allegedly suffered from
intentional interference of contractual relations and fraud would arise from
the lease underlying the restaurant in New York—not California.
      Further, there is no evidence in the record about whether, when, where
or how the respondents used or conveyed sensitive information about Feast to
Tarasa, the California-based property owner, in support of the torts alleged
in the SACC.
      Feast insists that the Beatties’ and Lake Region’s intentional torts
“caused injurious ‘effects’ inside California” and that “is enough to establish a
substantial connection for the purpose of minimum contacts.” But “mere
injury to a forum resident is not a sufficient connection to the forum.”
(Walden, supra, 571 U.S. at p. 290.) Accordingly, we conclude Feast has
failed to meet its burden of establishing California has personal jurisdiction

over Lake Region and the Beatties as to Feast’s tort claims against them.2

2     Given that Feast has failed to establish minimum contacts with
California, we need not decide whether it would be unfair or unreasonable to
compel Lake Region and the Beatties to submit to a California court. (See
Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th
215, 226 [“If the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate sufficient minimum
contacts with the forum to justify jurisdiction, a court is not required to
engage in the process of weighing the defendant’s inconvenience of litigating
in the forum against the plaintiff’s interests in suing locally and California’s
interest in assuming jurisdiction.”].)

                                       16
                               DISPOSITION
     The court’s order granting the motion to quash is affirmed. The
Beatties and Lake Region shall recover costs on appeal.

                                                               KELETY, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

O’ROURKE, J.

                                     17