Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP

• Decision Date: 04 November 2016
• Docket Number: D068865
• Citation: 210 Cal.Rptr.3d 16,5 Cal.App.5th 215
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: M. STRASNER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TOUCHSTONE WIRELESS REPAIR AND LOGISTICS, LP et al., Defendants and Respondents.

5 Cal.App.5th 215

210 Cal.Rptr.3d 16

M. STRASNER, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.TOUCHSTONE WIRELESS REPAIR AND LOGISTICS, LP et al., Defendants and Respondents.

D068865

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Filed November 4, 2016

Kristensen Weisberg, John P. Kristensen and David L. Weisberg, Los Angeles; Law Office of Gary Simms and Gary L. Simms for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Slater Hersey & Lieberman, Mark K. Slater, San Rafael, Elise K. Sara, San Francisco, and Neil J. Cooper, Irvine, for Defendants and Respondents.

McCONNELL, P.J.

M. Strasner sued out-of-state defendants Brightpoint, Inc. (Brightpoint), Brightpoint North America, LP (BPNA), Touchstone Wireless Repair and Logistics, LP (Touchstone) and Touchstone Acquisition, LLC (TAL) (collectively, Defendants) for injuries she suffered when a Touchstone employee allegedly uploaded a private photograph of Strasner to her Facebook page from a mobile telephone she had returned to T–Mobile. The court granted Defendants' motion to quash service of the summons and amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Strasner appeals, contending she made a sufficient showing of Defendants' contacts with California, both directly and through their California parent corporation, to subject them to personal jurisdiction. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Strasner entered into a wireless services contract with T–Mobile in 2010, in Santa Monica. Strasner's account was associated with a Los Angeles telephone number. In 2012, while living in New York, Strasner terminated her contract with T–Mobile and returned her mobile telephone to a T–Mobile store in New York. An employee at the store claimed to have erased all of Strasner's personal information from the mobile telephone, but the information allegedly remained. T–Mobile sent the telephone to a facility in Texas, operated by Touchstone, for refurbishing. Strasner alleges that while her former mobile telephone was at the facility, an employee viewed Strasner's personal data and used the telephone to upload a sensitive photograph of Strasner to her Facebook page and newsfeed. In May 2012, Strasner learned of the photograph's posting and immediately removed it, but several people had already seen the photograph. As a result, Strasner suffered severe emotional distress and embarrassment.

Strasner moved back to California in 2013 and sued T–Mobile and various Doe defendants in 2014, alleging (among other things) invasion of privacy, negligence, and violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. In 2015, she amended the complaint to name Ingram Micro, Inc. (Ingram), a California corporation, and she further amended the complaint to substitute Defendants for fictitiously named Does. Defendants filed a motion to quash service of the summons and amended complaint against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. Ingram did not contest personal jurisdiction.

In support of their motion to quash, Defendants submitted a sworn declaration from the senior director of Brightpoint. According to the director, by 2012, Touchstone, TAL and BPNA were all indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Ingram, but each remained a separate legal entity and Ingram never assumed liability for any of them. As to each Defendant's contacts with California, the declaration established as follows: (1) Brightpoint was not incorporated in California and did not have its principal place of business here; it did not own property or have an office in California in 2012 or 2015, and was not currently registered to do business in California; (2) BPNA did business as Ingram Micro Mobility, was not incorporated in California and did not have its principal place of business here; it did not own property or have an office in California in 2012 or 2015, and was not registered to do business in California in 2012 or 2015, it had some California customers, but derived only a small percentage of its domestic revenue from those customers and it did not play any role in Touchstone's refurbishing of mobile telephones for T–Mobile; (3) TAL was not incorporated in California and did not have its principal place of business here, it did not conduct business, own property or have an office in California in 2012 or 2015, and was not registered to do business in California in 2012 or 2015; and (4) Touchstone was not incorporated in California and did not have its principal place of business here, it did not employ persons, conduct business, own property or have an office in California in 2012 or 2015, and was not registered to do business in California in 2012 or 2015. At all relevant times, Touchstone had a contract with T–Mobile, whereby it provided logistics and repair services to T–Mobile, including refurbishing mobile telephones, at its facility in Texas. Touchstone had a single customer in California (not T–Mobile), for whom it provided services at its Texas facility, but Touchstone derived only a small percentage of its United States revenue from the California customer.

In opposition to Defendants' motion to quash, Strasner contended California could assert general jurisdiction over Defendants through their California-based parent corporation, Ingram, under an agency theory. She further contended Touchstone and Brightpoint were subject to specific jurisdiction in California, as a result of the Touchstone employee's intentional posting to Strasner's Facebook account, because the impact of the posting was aimed at her Facebook friends, the vast majority of whom are from California. She further emphasized Touchstone's connections to California through Ingram, Touchstone's California expenditures, and Touchstone's and Brightpoint's "integration" with Ingram but did not describe how those contacts related to the litigation or established specific jurisdiction. Strasner also submitted a declaration, attesting the vast majority of her Facebook friends reside in California and it would be apparent to anyone who accessed her Facebook account that any posting to her account "would be aimed primarily at those California residents."

In addition, Strasner had taken jurisdictional discovery and presented the following evidence with her opposition to Defendants' motion to quash: (1) Brightpoint's revenue was reported separately by parent Ingram in 2012, but by 2014, Ingram had begun consolidated reporting of Brightpoint's financials, Brightpoint no longer was publicly traded and ceased filing SEC reports, Brightpoint no longer had its own website and its trademarks were all owned by Ingram, and some managers at Ingram oversaw Brightpoint managers in human resources and accounting, but were not engaged in Brightpoint's day-to-day operations; (2) BPNA packaged and distributed mobile retail kits for wireless service providers; (3) TAL's president signed a contract with T–Mobile on behalf of Touchstone and the same person described himself as the president of "North America Mobility at Ingram Micro" on his LinkedIn page; and (4) Touchstone refurbished approximately 80 percent of the T–Mobile telephones it received and sent approximately 90 to 95 percent of the refurbished telephones to Brightpoint to be shipped to T–Mobile or T–Mobile customers, it made payments to vendors in California in 2014, and its former website redirects users to an Ingram-branded website. Strasner also provided SEC filings in which Ingram referred to itself and its subsidiaries as working together, "combining" forces and offering "end-to-end" supply chain services and "in-house repair" operations.

The trial court granted Defendants' motion to quash, finding Strasner had failed to demonstrate facts to support the exercise of general or specific jurisdiction as to any of the Defendants.

DISCUSSION

I. General Legal Principles and Standard of Review

California courts may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident on any basis consistent with the federal or state Constitution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) To comport with federal and state due process, California may only exercise jurisdiction when a defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the state to satisfy " ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ " (International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 ; Snowney v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1061, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 33, 112 P.3d 28 (Snowney ).) Under the minimum contacts test, we examine the quality and nature of a defendant's action to determine whether requiring him to submit to jurisdiction in California is reasonable and fair. (Snowney , at p. 1061, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 33, 112 P.3d 28.)

When a defendant challenges jurisdiction through a motion to quash, the plaintiff bears the burden to demonstrate facts, as to each nonresident defendant, justifying the exercise of jurisdiction by a preponderance of evidence. (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 258 (Automobile Antitrust ).) The plaintiff must provide specific evidentiary facts, through affidavits and other authenticated documents, sufficient to allow the court to independently conclude whether jurisdiction is appropriate. (Ibid. ) The plaintiff cannot rely on allegations in an unverified complaint or vague and conclusory assertions of ultimate facts. (Ibid. )

On review, we apply the substantial evidence standard to the trial court's factual determinations regarding conflicting evidence. ( Automobile Antitrust, su pra , 135 Cal.App.4th pp. 113–114, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 258.) However, we independently review the trial court's conclusions regarding the legal significance of the facts. (Buchanan v. Soto (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1362, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 663.) When the facts are undisputed, the issue of jurisdiction is purely a question of law. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 449, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 899, 926 P.2d 1085 (Vons ).)

II. General Jurisdiction

A. Legal Principles

...