27-May-2002 Prytulak to LASC: Motion-to-Quash-B

27-May-2002 Prytulak to LASC: Motion-to-Quash-B HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE RAMBAM KLAUSNER DUNN L.A. JUSTICE FEDEX

27-May-2002 Motion-to-Quash-B Case BC271433 Judge James R. Dunn

The following Motion-to-Quash-B was written 27-May-2002, and delivered to the Court by FedEx 29-May-2002 (as can be verified by clicking the red FedEx link above); to avoid ambiguity, all references to the motion will date it 27-May-2002. This 27-May-2002 Motion-to-Quash-B, then, was submitted bound together with a copy of Jewish Defense Organization vs Superior Court (1999) B129319 which can be consulted in its original pdf version, or in its derivative html version.

The instant motion is called "Motion-to-Quash-B" because it is the second in a series of four that were submitted by Lubomyr Prytulak, as is elaborated in greater detail in the Prytulak letter to Bascue of 27-Sep-2002. Motions-to-Quash A and B are highly similar, Motion-to-Quash-A being submitted to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Barry A. Taylor in Rambam vs Prytulak limited-jurisdiction Case 02E00326, which has since been dismissed, and Motion-to-Quash-B being submitted to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James R. Dunn in Rambam vs Prytulak general-jurisdiction Case BC271433, which as of 11-Oct-2002 is still pending. Motion-to-Quash-C somehow vanished after having been delivered to the Court, and only the last � Motion-to-Quash-D � succeeded in getting filed.

The following sentence in Motion-to-Quash-B is incorrect: "That is, even if both Plaintiff and Defendant in the present case did live in California � which they do not � California courts would still decline jurisdiction in the case of the present Defendant's Internet publication because that Internet publication was not aimed at California, and impacted California only peripherally and incidentally [...]." That is, it would be accurate to say that both Plaintiff and Defendant living in California would fail to confer specific jurisdiction; however, it would confer general jurisdiction. Neverthelss, this erroreous sentence contemplates a hypothetical case, and recognizing its inaccuracy does not in the least weaken the central argument that California does not have either general or specific jurisdiction over Lubomyr Prytulak.

Notice of
Motion to Quash Summons

upon the ground of

lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant

Case Number: BC271433

Defendant: Lubomyr PRYTULAK
Plaintiff: Steven RAMBAM

Los Angeles Superior Court – Central
111 N. Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90012

The Question Before the Court is One of Jurisdiction

In an earlier case with facts similar to the present case, the same Plaintiff, Steven Rambam, represented by the same attorney, Gary Kurtz, has already been given his answer in the California Court of Appeal decision B129319 � the answer being that the Court declines jurisdiction.

Where is Defendant Lubomyr Prytulak?

The Defendant Lubomyr Prytulak does not live in Califonia. He owns no property in California and conducts no business in California. He is a Canadian citizen, has lived in Canada from 1948 to the present, except for three years 1966-1969 when he was a graduate student at Stanford University. He has not set foot in California since 1969.

The Defendant's current address and telephone appear at the bottom of the present motion.

Where is Plaintiff Steven Rambam?

Steven Rambam doesn't live in California either. The California Court of Appeal B129319 stated that "From 1988 to the present, Rambam was the president of a licensed private investigative agency, Pallorium, Inc., located in Brooklyn, New York." At present, the Pallorium web site, located at http://www.pallorium.com lists a Brooklyn, NY address, and two telephone numbers having the area code 212, which is a New York area code:

P.O. BOX 155 � MIDWOOD STATION � BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11230 USA
TELEPHONE: (001) 212-969-0286 � TELECOPIER: (212) 858-5720

Where is the Allegedly Defamatory Material?

It's on the Internet, and so it's not more in California than it is anywhere else. Is the computer that holds the material in California? � According to Court of Appeal B129319, it doesn't matter where that computer is located:

Defendants' conduct of contracting, via computer, with Internet service providers, which may be California corporations or which may maintain offices or databases in California, is insufficient to constitute "purposeful availment" and does not satisfy the first prong of the three-part test for specific jurisdiction. (p. 17)

The Burden is on the Plaintiff

Quoting from California Court of Appeal B129319, it would appear that the Plaintiff has some work ahead of him:

When a nonresident defendant challenges personal jurisdiction the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that all necessary jurisdictional criteria are met. This burden must be met by competent evidence in affidavits and authenticated documentary evidence. An unverified complaint may not be considered as an affidavit supplying necessary facts. (p. 8)

And a Very Heavy Burden it is

The California Court of Appeal B129319 sets a jurisdictional standard far higher than Plaintiff Steven Rambam can meet. That is, even if both Plaintiff and Defendant in the present case did live in California � which they do not � California courts would still decline jurisdiction in the case of the present Defendant's Internet publication because that Internet publication was not aimed at California, and impacted California only peripherally and incidentally:

Jurisdiction under Calder requires more than a finding that the harm caused by the defendant's intentional tort is primarily felt within the forum.... [Rather] the Calder 'effects test' can only be satisfied if the plaintiff can point to contacts which demonstrate that the defendant expressly aimed its tortious conduct at the forum, and thereby made the forum the focal point of the tortious activity. Simply asserting that the defendant knew that the plaintiff's principal place of business was located in the forum would be insufficient in itself to meet this requirement. The defendant must 'manifest behavior intentionally targeted at and focused on' the forum for Calder to be satisfied. (p. 14)

In Short

The Plaintiff's present suit no more satisfies jurisdictional requirements than the one that he lost in front of the California Court of Appeal B129319. I respectfully ask the Court to quash the present suit, Case Number BC271433.

In the earlier and similar Los Angeles Superior Court Case 02E00326 (also defendant Lubomyr Prytulak and plaintiff Steven Rambam, and which as far as I can tell is still in progress), I had already argued that California courts would be expected to decline jurisdiction, and I had hoped that the present case BC271433 was a continuation, with amendments, of that earlier case, and so that my argument in the earlier case would apply to the present one as well.

Seeing that Steven Rambam activity continues, however, I recognize that the present repetition of my argument is called for. I request the court to advise me if I am required to retain a California attorney to present this jurisdictional argument on my behalf.

Signed:

Name: Lubomyr Prytulak

Date: 27-May-2002

Address:

[Address]

Telephone: [Telephone]

Email: [Email]

HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE RAMBAM KLAUSNER DUNN L.A. JUSTICE FEDEX