Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
12Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Ruling - Motion to Quash Granted in Kurtz v. Bernis

Ruling - Motion to Quash Granted in Kurtz v. Bernis

Ratings: (0)|Views: 14,604|Likes:
Published by AJ Weberman
Kurtz loses jurisdictional dispute. Judge puts the word ladies in quotations.
Kurtz loses jurisdictional dispute. Judge puts the word ladies in quotations.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: AJ Weberman on Jul 30, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/06/2015

pdf

text

original

 
SUPERIOR
COURT
OF
CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY
OF LOS
ANGELES
DATE:
07/16/12
HONORABLE
MARIA
E.
STRATTON
HONORABLE
T.
ZAVALA,
CA
JUDGE
JUDGE
PRO TEM
Deputy
Sheriff
S.
SKORICH
NONE
DEPT.
NWT
DEPUTY CLERK
ELECTRONIC
RECORDING MONITOR
Reporter
8:30
am
LC095923
GARY
KURTZ
VS
DAVID
BERNIS, ET AL
Plaintiff
CounselDefendant
Counsel
NO
APPEARANCES
NATURE
OF PROCEEDINGS:
RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER
Motion
to Quash has been argued and taken under
submission by the
Court
on
July
10,
2012.
After
consideration, and pursuant to its written
ruling,
the Court makes the following
orders:
The
Motion
to
Quash
is
granted
and the
action
is
ordered dismissed.
The Court's
written ruling,
now its
final ruling
regarding
this matter
is
attached
to
this
mintue
order
for
reference
and is
placed
in thecourt
file.
CLERK'SCERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I,
the
below-named Executive
Officer/Clerk
of the
above-entitledcourt,
do hereby certify that I am
not:
apartyto thecause herein,andthatonthis
date
I
served
the
Minute Orderupon each party or counsel named below by placing
the
document
for
collection
and
mailing
so as to
cause
it to be
deposited
in the
United States mailPage
1 of
DEPT. NWT
MINUTES
ENTERED
07/16/12
COUNTY
CLERK
 
Gary
Kurtz
v.
David
Bernis
LC
095923
Findings
and Order of Dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction over
defendant
On
July
10, 2012,
this matter came before the court for a hearing on defendant's motionto quash service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court took the matter
under
submission. The court now grants the motion and dismisses the action.
Facts
On
December
30, 2011,
plaintiff Gary
Kurz
filed
a
complaint
for
damages
and
injunctiverelieffordefamation, false light/invasionofprivacyandunfair business practices.
Plaintiff
is a
resident
of
California; defendant resides
in New
York
and
according
to the
complaint, publishes defamatory communications calculated
to
reach audiences
and
causedamages to plaintiff in California and other states. Complaint, Para. 1,2.
Defendant
allegedly published
on the
internet
and
republished
on a
daily
basis
at
steverombom.organdlinked page, defamatory informationset out in thecomplaintatparagraph
7.
Plaintiff
alleges
that
he has
suffered business
and
personal
losses
as a
result
of the
published
information.
On
May 9,2012,
defendant filed
a
motion
to
quash
service,
arguing
that
the
court lacks
personal
jurisdiction over him. In support of the motion, defendant
filed
a Declaration ofDavid Bernis
which
establishes:
1)
defendant does
not
reside
in
California
nor
does
he
own
property
in
California;
2)
defendant
has no
business
interests
in
California
and hasnot
visited
the
state
in the
last
30
years;
3)
defendant does
not
create
the
content
on the
website,
steverombom.org; 4)
defendant
did not
know
of
plaintiff
prior to the
filing
of the
instant lawsuit; 5) defendant is a provider of the URL digital identifier that translates
into
steverombom.org
on the
internet.
In
response
to the
Declaration
of
David Bernis,
plaintiff
filed
the
Declaration
of
GaryKurtz which primarily
addresses
the
damages that plaintiff
has
suffered
in
California
as a
result
of the publication of the allegedly
defamatory
information. In particular
plaintiff
declares
that his relationship with his three teenaged children has been damaged becausethey have seen
the
website
as has his
relationship with
several
"ladies"
who have
declined
to date him because of what they have seen on the website. Attached to the
Declaration
areprintouts fromthewebsite which
refer
toplaintiffas,among other things,
a
degenerate
sex
addict reprobate,
and
impugns
his
professional
experience.
The
website
provides linkstoother websites with, presumably, negative information about
plaintiff.
Law
California courts
may
exercise personal jurisdiction
on any
basis consistent with
the
Constitution
of
California
and the
United States.
CCP
§410.10.
Exercise
of
jurisdiction
over
a
nonresident defendant comports with these Constitutions
if the
defendant
has
such
 
minimum
contacts
with
the
state
that the
assertion
of jurisdiction
does
not
violatetraditional notions
of
fair
play
and
substantial justice.
(Pavlovichv.
Superior Court
(2002)29Cal.4
th
262,268(internal citationsomitted).)
Under
the
minimum contacts test, personal jurisdiction
may be
either general
or
specific.
(Snowney
v.
Harrah
's
Entertainment,
Inc
(2005)
35
Cal.4
th
1054,
1062.)
When considering whether specific
jurisdiction
exists,
courts
consider
the
relationship
among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. A court may exercise jurisdictionoveranonresident defendant onlyif:
1)
thedefendanthaspurposefully availed himselfor herself of
forum
benefits; 2) the controversy is related to or
arises
out of thedefendant's contacts with
the
forum;
and 3) the
assertion
of
personal jurisdiction wouldcomport with
fair
play and substantial justice. The first requirement, "purposeful
availment,"
focuses on the defendant's intentionality; it is satisfied
when
the defendantpurposefully
and
voluntarily
directs
hisactivities towardthe
forum
so
that
heshould
expect,
by
virtue
of the
benefit
he
receives,
to be
subject
to the
court's
jurisdiction based
on
his contacts with the forum.
(Pavolich,
supra,
29
Cal.4
th
at 269.)
When
a
defendant moves
to
quash service
of
process
for
lack
of
specific jurisdiction,
the
plaintiff
has the
initial
burden
of
demonstrating facts justifying
the
exercise
of
jurisdiction.
If
plaintiff
meets
this initial
burden,
then
the
defendant
has the
burden
of
demonstrating
that the
exercise
ofjurisdiction
would
be unreasonable.
(Id.
at
273).
Whether
personal jurisdiction over
a
nonresident
can be
based solely
on
Internet activities
depends
on the
nature
and
qualify
of the
acts
mvolved^~(Snowney,
"supra,
33 Cal.4
th
at
1062-64.)
Posting information
on a
passive Internet site accessible
to
forum residents
is
not
an act "directed at the forum
state,"
and thus not enough for the exercise of localpersonal jurisdiction. Mere foreseeability thattheposting will haveaneffectin the
forum
state
is not
sufficient
to
confer
personal
jurisdiction.
Instead,
plaintiff
must show
intentional
conduct by defendant expressly aimed at or targeting the forum state
inadditionto
the defendant's knowledge that his intentional conduct would
cause
harm intheforum.
(Pavolich, supra,
29 Cal.4
th
at271.)
If
the website is interactive, the exercise of
jurisdiction
must be determined by examiningthe level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that
occurs
on
the web site.
(Jewish
Defense
Organization, Inc.
v.
Sup. Ct.(Rambam)
(1999)
72Cal.App.4
th
1045,
1060.)Analysis
At
issue is whether defendant's website supports the assertion of personal jurisdiction
over
defendant.
In
this
action plaintiff appears
to be
asserting specific jurisdiction only.
The
court
finds
that
the
website
is not
interactive.
It is the
passive posting
of
information.Defendant
is not the
author
of the
contents
of the
website;
he is
simply
the
registrant
of
the URL address. There is nothing about the contents of the postings, based on the

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->