1 Eliyahu Kaplunovsky (SBN # 299178)

P.O. Box, 675194

2 Rancho Santa Fe, California 92067
Phone: 760-402-7008 Fax: 760-683-3195
3
4 Attorney for Defendant,
CUBA Beverage Company
5
6
7
8 THE SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10 HALL OF JUSTICE
11 GEORGE SHARP Case No. 37-2020-00019244-CL-BC-CTL
12 Plaintiff NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
13 vs.
[C.C.P. § 418.10 ]
14 CUBA BEVERAGE COMPANY;
MARK HAGEN; MARGARET Date: November 20, 2020
15 WILLETT, and DOES 1-500
INCLUSIVE Time: 09:00 a.m.
16
Dept: 75, Hon. Richard L. Strauss
17
18 TO ALL PARTIES AND RESPECTIVE COUNSEL HEREIN AND TO THE
19 HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT:
20 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that on the date and time set forth above, or as soon thereafter
21 as the matter may be heard, in Dept. 75, of the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, located
22 at 330 W. Broadway, San Diego, California 92101. Defendant CUBA Beverage Company, for itself
23 and itself alone, will and hereby does move the Court for an order quashing service of the Summons
24 and complaint in the instant action.
25 The motion will be based on this Notice of Motion, on the Memorandum of Points and
26 Authorities attached hereto, on the Declaration of George W. Morgan in his capacity as President
27 Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Defendant, CUBA Beverage
28 Company.
 1 This motion will be further based on those provisions set forth by California Code of
2 Civil Procedure § 418.10, on the record on file herein, on those matters which may be judicially
3 noticed, and on any and all further supporting evidence or testimony which may be presented to
4 the Court at the time of hearing on the instant motion.
5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
6 Defendant CUBA BEVERAGE COMPANY, submits this memorandum in support of its
7 motion to quash service of process. Defendant’s motion, and all attendant papers and actions, are
8 intended to serve as a special appearance pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure.§ 418.10
9 Furthermore, Defendant neither consents nor submits to the jurisdiction of this Court, instead,
10 contesting jurisdiction by way of this motion.
11 A. Nature of the Action
12 This is a contract case in which Plaintiff alleges it is owed residual funds on a contract which
13 was terminated and rescinded by Defendant and Plaintiff concurrently. Plaintiff’s asserts that
14 Defendant entered into contract with Plaintiff on February 20, 2020 in which Defendant was to
15 pay Plaintiff the amount of $30,000.00 (Thirty Thousand Dollars), in two payments of $15,000.00
16 (Fifteen Thousand Dollars), commencing on February 20, 2020 and a second payment in the amount
17 of $15,000.00 (Fifteen Thousand Dollars) to be paid on May 20, 2020 for consulting work with the
18 OTC Markets
19 Notwithstanding the above, on April 15, 2020 Defendant terminated and rescinded its
20 contract with Plaintiff when Defendant discovered inter alia that Plaintiff had not been truthful
21 regarding his activities in relation to Defendants company, had lied to its officers and directors, had
22 made egregious accounting errors, had set up accounts and was publishing statements on social
23 media regarding the company’s intentions without the knowledge, consent or authority of the
24 Company’s officers and directors. Further, Defendant is informed and believes that Plaintiff was
25 holding shares of company stock in the name of “Straw Men”, or “Rat Holes”and using inside
26 information provided to him from the Company for the purposes of conducting an insider trading
27 scheme. Immediately thereafter Defendant received Plaintiffs “resignation” and his demand for
28 payment on the remainder of his contract.

-2-
 1 B. Identification of Parties
2 Defendant, CUBA Beverage Co., is a Wyoming State Corporation. The Company’s agent
3 for service of process is, Hirst Applegate Registered Agent Services, Inc. Located at, 1720 Carey
4 Ave. Ste 400, Cheyenne, WY 82001. Additionally Defendant’s mailing address and Corporate
5 Offices are Headquartered in the State of Nevada at, 6130 Elton Ave. Las Vegas, NV. 89107.
6 Defendant is informed and believes that Plaintiff is an “out of state” resident, living in the
7 State of Arizona, but at the same time maintaining a separate mailing address at a UPS Store in
8 Del Mar California at, 3525 Del Mar Heights Road, #620, San Diego, CA 92130.
9 C. Summary Of Facts Re Jurisdiction
10 Defendant CUBA Beverage Co. has no connection with California. CUBA Beverage Co.
11 Is a Wyoming State Corporation and is not incorporated in California, does not have offices in
12 California and does not have any regular clients or work in California. Furthermore, CUBA
13 Beverage Co. has never: solicited business in California; designated a registered agent for service
14 of process in California; maintained a place of business in California; maintained a bank account,
15 did not solicit or engage in business activities and did not solicit contact with California
16 residents.
17 D. Summary Of Argument
18 By way of the instant motion, Defendant asks this Court to quash service of process on
19 the grounds that this Court lacks power to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
20 Defendant is not a California Corporation and is not headquartered in California, has no contacts,
21 no ties, no relationship with California, was not served within California, and has not consented
22 to or appeared in the California action (Pennoyer v. Neff 95 U.S. 714, 733 (1877)). Therefore,
23 there is no constitutionally sufficient basis for this Court to assert personal jurisdiction over
24 Defendant. Accordingly, this Court must quash service of process as to the moving Defendant.
25 (C.C.P. §473(d); C.C.P. §418.10(d)).
26 /././
27 /././
28 /././

-3-
 1 II.
2 BECAUSE THIS COURT LACKS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER
3 DEFENDANT, THE COURT SHOULD QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS
4 California courts are empowered to exercise personal jurisdiction on any basis consistent
5 with the State or Federal Constitution (CCP §410.10). In this regard, a court may exercise
6 personal jurisdiction over a non-resident Defendant only when the Defendant has such minimum
7 contacts with the forum state that the maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions
8 of fair play and substantial justice" (Felix v. Bomoro Kommanditgesellschaft (1987) 196
9 Cal.App.3d 106, 111 [citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)];
10 Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984). Moreover, minimum
11 contacts are measured on a case-by-case basis and the ultimate test is whether "California has a
12 sufficient relationship with the [particular] Defendant and litigation [as] to make it reasonable
13 ("fair play")..." to require the Defendant to defend the litigation in California (Weil & Brown,
14 Cal.Prac.Guide: Civ.Pro.Before Trial, (The Rutter Group 1999) §3:202 at 3-41.2
15 A. The Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction over Defendant CUBA Beverage Co.
16 The personal jurisdiction analysis is broken down into two questions: [1] does "general"
17 jurisdiction exist; and [2] absent "general" jurisdiction, does "specific" jurisdiction exist (see
18 Brown v. Watson (1989) 207 Cal. App.3d 1306, 1312). In other words:
19 If a defendant has sufficient extensive 'contacts' with the forum state, it may be subject to
20 suit there on all claims wherever they arise [i.e., general jurisdiction].... [In] other cases, the
21 jurisdictional sufficiency of the defendant's contacts depends on an assessment of the
22 'relationship among the defendants, the forum, and the litigation [i.e., specific jurisdiction]'.
23 Sammons Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1427, 1432.
24 As explained below, neither "general" nor "specific" jurisdiction are present in this case.
25 1. General Jurisdiction Is Absent In This Case
26 General jurisdiction depends upon substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts
27 between the defendant and the forum state. Perkins v. Benguet Mining Consolidated Mining Co.,
28 (1952) 342 U.S. 437, 447-448; KLM v. Superior Court, (1951) 107 Cal.App.2d 495, 500;

-4-
 1 Sammons Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 1434; Secrest Machine Corp. v. Superior
2 Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 664, 669. In this case, Defendant CUBA’s contact with California is
3 anything but substantial, continuous, or systematic.
4 First, Defendant is a Wyoming Corporation. Second, Defendants does not have any
5 regular business, clients or employees in California. Third, Defendant has never solicited
6 business in California. Fourth, Defendant has never designated a registered agent for service of
7 process in California. Fifth, Defendant has never maintained a place of business in California .
8 Sixth, Defendant has never owned property or maintained a bank account in California.
9 In short, Defendant has not engaged in any business activities in California, much less
10 any activities that may be described as substantial, continuous, or systematic. Hence, there is no
11 basis for California to exercise general jurisdiction over Defendant CUBA Beverage Co., Since
12 California has no real relationship with this Defendant, it is not reasonable to require Defendant
13 CUBA, to defend pending litigation in California.
14 2. Specific Jurisdiction Is Absent In This Case
15 Specific jurisdiction depends upon a showing that the non-resident Defendant
16 purposefully established contacts with the forum state, that the Plaintiff's cause of action arises
17 out of the dDefendant's forum-related contacts, and the forum's exercise of personal jurisdiction
18 comports with fair play and substantial justice. Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472,
19 476-78 (1985); Cornelison v. Chaney, (1976) 16 Cal.3d 143, 148.
20 In other words, where a non-resident Defendant's activities in the forum are not so
21 pervasive as to justify the exercise of general jurisdiction over him, then jurisdiction depends
22 upon the quality and nature of his activity in the forum in relation to the particular cause of
23 action.... Thus, as the relationship of the Defendant with the state seeking to exercise jurisdiction
24 over him grows more tenuous, the scope of jurisdiction also retracts and fairness is assured by
25 limiting the circumstances under which the plaintiff can compel him to appear and defend.
26 Brown v. Watson (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1306, 1312-1313, [emphasis added.]
27 /././
28 /././

-5-
 1 Thus, specific jurisdiction is determined under a three-part test: '(1) The nonresident
2 Defendant must do some act or consummate some transaction with the forum or perform some
3 act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum,
4 thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which arises
5 out of or results from the Defendant's forum-related activities; and (3) exercise of jurisdiction
6 must be reasonable. (Jewish Defense Organization Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th
7 1045, 1054, citing Panavision Intern., L.P. v. Toeppen 141 F.3d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir. 1998)).
8 The aforesaid requirements are absent in this case.
9 a. CUBA Beverage Co. Has Had No Purposeful Contact with California
and Has Not Purposefully Availed Itself of the Benefits of the Forum State.
10
11 First, this case does not involve purposeful contact between Defendant and California. A
12 "purposeful" contact is one in which a particular Defendant has deliberately directed his/her
13 activities at the residents of the forum state or has deliberately availed himself/herself of the
14 benefits and protections of the laws of the forum state (Hanson v. Denckla, (1958) 357 U.S. 235,
15 253-254; See Also Sibley v. Superior Court, (1976) 16 Cal.3d 442, 447-448). Stated in the
16 converse, personal jurisdiction does not extend to a non-resident defendant by virtue of "random,
17 fortuitous or attendant..." contacts over which the defendant had no control (Burger King v.
18 Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-76, 485 (1985). Furthermore, unilateral activity on the part of the
19 Plaintiff or others over whom the non-resident Defendant has no control does not translate into a
20 purposeful contact on the part of the defendant (Helicopteros Nacionales v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408,
21 416-417 (1984).
22 In this case, CUBA Beverage Co. did not exercise any control over anyone in California
23 and never solicited contacts with California residents Assuming, arguendo, that any California
24 resident contacted the subject web site, such contact would have been simply fortuitous.
25 Accordingly, to the extent that Defendant CUBA Beverage Co. is involved in the transaction
26 which is the subject of this lawsuit, his involvement cannot be described as a purposeful contact
27 with California.
28 /././

-6-
 1 Court's have established guidelines in cyberspace cases where the plaintiff attempts to
2 utilize the "effects test" (Calder v. Jones 465 U.S. 783 (1984)) to satisfy the "purposeful
3 availment" requirement of specific jurisdiction:
4 [T]he likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly
5 proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the
6 Internet. This sliding scale is consistent with well developed personal jurisdiction principles. At
7 one end of the spectrum are situations where a defendant clearly does business over the Internet.
8 If the defendant enters into contracts with residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve the
9 knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet, personal jurisdiction is
10 proper. [Citation.] At the opposite end are situations where a defendant has simply posted
11 information on an Internet Web site which is accessible to users in foreign jurisdictions. A
12 passive Web site that does little more than make information available to those who are
13 interested in it is not grounds for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. [Citation] (Jewish Defense
14 Organization v. Superior Court, supra, at 1060)
15 Here, CUBA Beverage Co. has at most offered information via email transmission.
16 Assuming, arguendo, that the information reached California residents such contacts would be
17 insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction (Id; and see also Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc,130
18 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997). In Jewish Defense Organization Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, the
19 Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of a Defendant's motion to vacate default
20 judgment and quash service of process where the Defendant had made allegedly defamatory
21 statements (the subject of the lawsuit) on his Web site, used the U.S. mail to contact a California
22 resident, previously resided in California, and contracted with a California Internet service
23 provider (ISP) to host his Web site in question. In the instant case, the forum contacts are even
24 less substantial than those in Jewish Defense Organization. CUBA Beverage Co. has had no
25 contacts with California and is only alleged to have offered information via email transmission to
26 the Plaintiff only. Thus, this Court should follow the Appellate Court’s holding in Jewish
27 Defense Organization, and quash service of process based on a lack of purposeful availment.
28 /././

-7-
 1 B. The Claim Does Not Arise from Defendant’s Forum-related Activities
2 Second, Plaintiff's cause of action does not relate to any local activities on the part of
3 Defendant CUBA Beverage Co. Personal jurisdiction is restricted to situations wherein a
4 particular cause of action relates to or "arises out of" the Defendant's forum-related activities
5 (Jewish Defense Organization, supra, at 1054 and Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.,
6 342 U.S. 437, 444-445 (1952). In this case, Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant hired him as a
7 consultant with the OTC Markets located in Washington D.C.,. Thus, it cannot be said that the
8 Plaintiff's claim arises from or relates to Defendants contact with this forum.
9 C. Exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable in this case
10 Third, it is unreasonable, and thus constitutionally offensive, to impose personal
11 jurisdiction in this case. In ascertaining reasonableness in applying personal jurisdiction, Courts
12 balance the following factors:
13 The interest of the state in providing a forum for its residents or in regulating the business
14 involved...; the relative availability of the evidence and the burden of defense and prosecution in
15 one place rather than another...; the ease of access to an alternative forum...; the avoidance of
16 multiplicity of suits and conflicting adjudications...; and the extent to which the cause of action
17 arose out of defendant's local activities.... Fisher Governor Co. v. Superior Court, (1959) 53
18 Cal.2d 222, 225-26.
19 Additionally, because CUBA Beverage Co. is domiciled in Nevada and is incorporated in
20 Wyoming as a new start-up company and has no contact with, or reason to conduct business in,
21 California, it would necessarily be a substantial burden on CUBA Beverage Co. to defend this
22 action in California. With the above factors in mind, it is evident that the balance weighs heavily
23 against jurisdiction in California. Therefore, and in the interests of fair play and substantial
24 justice, this Court should not impose jurisdiction in this case.
25 /././
26 /././
27 /././
28 /././

-8-
 1 III.
2 CONCLUSION
3 For all of the above reasons, California does not have personal jurisdiction over
4 Defendant CUBA Beverage Co. therefore, Defendant’s motion to quash service should be
5 granted.
6 The foregoing memorandum of points and authorities is respectfully submitted by,
7 Eliyahu Kaplunovsky, attorney for Defendant, CUBA Beverage Company.
8
9 Dated: September 29, 2020 By: /s/ Eliyahu Kaplunovsky
Eliyahu Kaplunovsky
10 Attorney for Defendant
CUBA Beverage Company
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-9-