CARVALHO vs EDGE BUSINESS SERVICES CORP., et al.

25CV141395: CARVALHO vs EDGE BUSINESS SERVICES CORP., et al. 07/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by EDGE BUSINESS SERVICES CORP. (Defendant) CRS# 133752208996 in Department 520

Tentative Ruling - 07/08/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson

The Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by EDGE BUSINESS SERVICES CORP. on 12/02/2025 is Denied.

The Motion of Defendants Edge Business Services Corp.; Edge Logistics Corp., Eg Ground Management, Inc.; LA Depositions, Inc.; LMDE, LLC; and Nevada Logistics Investment Company, Inc. (“Defendants”) to Quash Summons is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is granted as to Exhibits A through F, which consist of California court records. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) However, the Court does not take judicial notice of the truth of any of the facts asserted in the matters noticed. (See Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1413 n. 7; Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 882.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGAL STANDARD

California's courts “may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” (C.C.P., § 410.10.) Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10 is coextensive with the limits of due process. (Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd. (Fed.Cir. 2009) 566 F.3d 1012, 1017.) Due process requires a defendant to have “certain minimum contacts with [the State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” (International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316.)

There are two forms of personal jurisdiction, general and specific. (International Shoe, supra, 326 U.S. at 318.) It is undisputed that Nissan Mexicana is not “at home” in California as to allow general jurisdiction under Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 133.

Specific jurisdiction is also known as case-linked jurisdiction. “In order for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a claim, there must be an ‘affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State.’ [Citation.]” (Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of 25CV141395: CARVALHO vs EDGE BUSINESS SERVICES CORP., et al. 07/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by EDGE BUSINESS SERVICES CORP. (Defendant) CRS# 133752208996 in Department 520 California, San Francisco County (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1781 [198 L.Ed.2d 395].)

When a defendant moves to quash service on the lack of personal jurisdiction, "the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction." (Snowney v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062.) The burden must be met through competent evidence. (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial [TRG 2009 rev.] §§ 3:384 - 3:389, pp. 3-89 to 3-90 and cases cited therein.)

A trial court has discretion to continue a hearing on a motion to quash “to allow the plaintiff to conduct discovery on jurisdictional issues. [Citation.]” (HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1173.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery, which would seek, inter alia, information to “determine the extent of Defendants’ contacts in California” via their contacts, management, operations, alter-ego relationships, agency relationships, California-directed activities, or other forum-related conduct. (Oppo., pp. 4:12-13, 19-24.)

As correctly stated by Defendants, to prevail on a continuance for jurisdictional discovery, plaintiff must demonstrate that the discovery is likely to lead to the production of evidence of facts establishing jurisdiction. (ParaFi Digital Opportunities LP v. Egorov (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 124, 142.)

At the same time, a plaintiff is generally entitled to conduct discovery with regard to a jurisdictional issue before a court rules on a motion to quash. (See Mihlon v. Sup. Ct. (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710.) The granting of a discovery request “lies in the discretion of the trial court, whose ruling will not be disturbed in the absence of manifest abuse.” (Beckman v. Thompson (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 481, 487.)

If Defendants' activities in California "are not so pervasive as to justify the exercise of general jurisdiction over [it], then jurisdiction depends upon the quality and nature of [its] activity in the forum in relation to the particular cause of action. In such a situation, the cause of action must arise out of an act done or transaction consummated in the forum, or defendant must perform some other act by which [it] purposefully avails [it]self of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." (Cornelison v. Chaney (1976) 16 Cal.3d 143, 147-148; see also International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 [due process requires "minimum contacts" between the defendant and the forum state such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice"].)

In support of jurisdiction, Plaintiff refers to his Complaint to support his allegations that all but

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV141395: CARVALHO vs EDGE BUSINESS SERVICES CORP., et al. 07/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by EDGE BUSINESS SERVICES CORP. (Defendant) CRS# 133752208996 in Department 520 one Defendant, as corporate entities based in Nevada, may operate as alter egos of one another. He alleges that Elisha Gilboa, the owner and manager currently controls labor relations of Defendants as well as judgment debtor and non-party Oakland Service of Process, Inc. previously, and that Defendants are therefore jointly liable for the judgment owed to him against Oakland Service of Process, Inc.

The evidence submitted consists solely of counsel’s declaration attesting to the discovery requests propounded on Defendants on January 13, 2026 and the objection-only responses thereafter received on February 12, 2026 and March 6, 2026. (Burton Decl., ¶¶ 3-7.) While minimal, Plaintiff is within his right to seek – and obtain – discovery as permitted by the Discovery Act.

Plaintiff has 21 Motions to Compel Further pending, scheduled for August 6, 2026 in a combination of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and Requests for Production of Documents as to the six Defendants prior to the September 16, 2026 initial Case Management Conference. (ROA; Burton Decl., ¶ 9(a)-(u).)

As this case is not quite a year old and Plaintiff would be prejudiced without being able to obtain basic information from discovery responses, the Court uses its discretion to DENY the Motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on July 9, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on July 8, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV141395: CARVALHO vs EDGE BUSINESS SERVICES CORP., et al. 07/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by EDGE BUSINESS SERVICES CORP. (Defendant) CRS# 133752208996 in Department 520 give email notice that they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.