Tentative Ruling: Abraham Huacuja vs Albert Hunter et al
Case Number
25CV06288
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Tue, 10/20/2026 - 08:30
Nature of Proceedings
Motion to Quash
Tentative Ruling
Tentative Ruling:
For all the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted.
The parties are instructed to appear at the hearing for oral argument. Appearance by Zoom Videoconference is optional and does not require the filing of Judicial Council form RA-010, Notice of Remote Appearance. (See Remote Appearance (Zoom) Information | Superior Court of California | County of Santa Barbara.)
Background:
According to the first amended complaint, in October 2023, plaintiff Abraham Huacuja entered into a contract with defendants Albert Hunter Jr. and Keaira Chearis to design create plaintiff’s website and related services. The work was expected to be completed within four months at a cost of no more than $10,000 - $15,000. The work has not been completed. On October 10, 2025, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging causes of action for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and related matters.
Defendant Keaira Chearis moves to quash service of service for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) She states she currently resides outside the State of California; has never lived in California; has never traveled to California; does not own property in California; does not maintain an office in California; and does not employ workers in California. (Chearis Decl., ¶¶ 2-7.)
Where a defendant properly moves to quash out-of-state service of process for lack of jurisdiction, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish the facts of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Evidence of those facts or their absence may be in the form of declarations. (Alexander v. Heater (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1241, 1246.)
Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. A nonresident defendant may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if his or her contacts in the forum state are “substantial ... continuous and systematic.” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445.) If the nonresident defendant does not have substantial and systematic contacts in the forum sufficient to establish general jurisdiction, he or she still may be subject to the specific jurisdiction of the forum, if the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits and the “controversy is related to or ‘arises out of’ a defendant's contacts with the forum.” (Id. at 446.) Here, it does not appear that plaintiff contends that general jurisdiction exists. The court therefore need only consider whether specific jurisdiction exists.
When determining whether specific jurisdiction exists, courts consider the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only 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. (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269.)
As the name and definition of purposeful availment make plain, an out-of-state defendant's conduct toward the forum state or its residents is relevant to the jurisdictional analysis only if that conduct is purposeful, deliberate, and intentional. An out-of-state defendant's contact with a forum state that is “random, fortuitous, or attenuated” is not enough. This is why the mere fact that the out-of-state defendant's conduct has some “effect” on a California resident is not enough, by itself, to constitute purposeful availment; to count, that effect must be intended. (Jacqueline B. v. Rawls Law Group, P.C. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 243, 254 [citing cases].) It is well settled that a discrete, shorter-term contract between an out-of-state defendant and a forum resident “does not automatically establish purposeful availment” in the resident's “home forum.” (Jacqueline B. v. Rawls Law Group, P.C. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 243, 255 [citing cases].) Rather, a court must evaluate the contract terms and the surrounding circumstances to determine whether the defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum. Relevant factors include prior negotiations, contemplated future consequences, the parties' course of dealings, and the contract's choice-of-law provision. (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, supra, 471 U.S. at pp. 478–482.)
Here, plaintiff presents the following facts: plaintiff does business in California (Huacuja Decl., ¶ 3); defendant Keaira Chearis and plaintiff communicated and made agreements and exchanged information via a business named Upwork, which is a website that connects freelancers with clients; Chearis entered into a contract with plaintiff to create a website within four months; she did not complete the work. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Upwork is a California corporation. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Payments were processed through Upwork. (Chearis Decl., ¶ 10.) The terms of the contract between plaintiff and defendant are not disclosed, nor is the contract attached to the complaint. Neither party address whether the contract contains a choice-of-law provision.
In Hall v. LaRonde (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1342, plaintiff, a California resident, contacted defendant, a New York corporation, about a software module he had written. Defendant integrated the module into its software package. Defendant then authorized plaintiff to sell licenses for the software. Defendant stopped paying plaintiff, and plaintiff sued in California. Defendant moved to quash. The appellate court held that defendant had sufficient contacts to impose jurisdiction: “The record shows that [defendant’s] contacts with California consisted of more than simply purchasing a software module from [plaintiff]. [Defendant] worked with [plaintiff] to integrate the module into [defendant’s] software package. Even after the initial adaptation was finished, [defendant] continued to work with [plaintiff] to modify the module for new and existing software. In addition, the contract contemplated that [defendant] would make continuing royalty payments to [plaintiff]. Thus, [defendant] created a “ ‘continuing obligation[ ]’ ” between himself and a resident of California.” (Id. at 1347—defendant’s contacts were more than “ ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated.’ ”)
In comparison, defendant has not purposefully availed herself of the benefits of California as a forum. There is no evidence that she purposefully directed any activities toward California residents. At most, she signed up as a freelancer on a website that could be accessed by California residents. [1] The contract was, according to plaintiff’s own declaration, intended to be for the short-term without any continuing relationship. Based on this record, the court concludes that the relationship was sufficiently fortuitous and attenuated. (See Jacqueline B. v. Rawls Law Group, P.C. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 243, 256—defendant law firm which operated a website that could be accessed by California residents did not purposely avail themselves of any benefits of California as a forum because it did not derive any benefit from the forum state over and above the potential contingency fee promised in the retainer agreement and its consequent “effect” on plaintiff.)
Plaintiff argues that the contacts were not “accidental, isolated, or solely Plaintiff-created contacts. Defendant herself initiated and continued in the California-related (sic) obtaining over $70,000, and entering into the Agreement.” (Opposition, p. 5, ll. 16-18.) It is unclear what plaintiff is attempting to say. His declaration, however, does not support an inference that defendant initiated contact. Plaintiff’s declaration states only that he and defendant “communicated and made agreements and exchanged information via a business named Upwork.” (Huacuja Decl., ¶ 3.) The record lacks any details surrounding the circumstances of how the contract was formed. It quite simply does not describe who made the initial contact. Even if defendant made the initial contact, the circumstances of that exchange would be relevant (e.g. whether it was in response to a job post, etc.).
To be sure, some of the factors tend to point toward purposeful availment—such as plaintiff's residence in California and the execution of the agreement in California. But the weight of the factors point away from purposeful availment as detailed above.
Because plaintiff did not carry the burden of establishing the first requirement of specific jurisdiction, the court has no occasion to examine the remaining elements. The motion to quash is granted.
[1] There is no evidence the website targeted California residents specifically, notwithstanding its own ties to California. In any event, plaintiff has cited no authority in support of imputing Upwork’s conduct to the defendant. (See Walden v. Fiore (2014) 571 U.S. 277, 284--relationship must arise out of contacts that the “defendant himself ” creates with the forum state” not contacts between the forum state and the plaintiff or a third party.)