Hogue v. Hogue
C083285
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 30, 2017Background
- Marla Gwen Hogue filed for a domestic violence restraining order in California in Feb 2016 after moving back from Georgia; she alleged longstanding spousal abuse and a December 2015 incident in which defendant left her with facial injuries and sent a social-media video simulating suicide.
- Defendant Jerry Dean Hogue, then residing in Georgia (now South Carolina), was served in Georgia and made a special appearance to move to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction; the trial court granted the motion.
- Plaintiff appealed; she argued California courts had specific jurisdiction either because defendant’s conduct fell within a “special regulation” theory or because of a continuing course of conduct directed at California.
- The trial court’s factual record was sparse: defendant submitted a declaration denying California contacts; plaintiff relied on her petition and an unverified printout of internet communications attached to opposing papers (not verified or authenticated).
- The trial court treated the alleged internet communications (other than the mock-suicide video) as unalleged or unproved and appeared to assume the violence occurred outside California; on appeal the court limited the factual basis to the Georgia incidents and the video message.
- The Court of Appeal vacated the order quashing service, finding the mock-suicide video—sent to Hogue in California—constituted conduct subject to California’s special regulation under the Domestic Violence Protection Act and therefore supported specific jurisdiction; remanded for merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who sent a mock-suicide video to a plaintiff in California | Hogue: video and alleged continuing abusive course directed at CA justify specific jurisdiction, or special-regulation effects jurisdiction under DVPA | Hogue: no California contacts; alleged abusive acts occurred in Georgia; move to quash for lack of jurisdiction | Held: Specific jurisdiction exists under the "special regulation" theory — the video targeted Hogue in CA and falls within conduct California may specially regulate under the DVPA; order quashing service vacated |
| Whether unverified internet communications attached to opposition establish purposeful contacts with California | Hogue: attachments show systematic abusive online contacts supporting jurisdiction | Hogue: attachments are not authenticated evidence of contacts | Held: Unverified, unauthenticated printouts are inadequate; court did not rely on them |
| Whether plaintiff met burden of pleading jurisdictional facts when defendant denied prior in-California abuse | Hogue: prior in-California abuse would support jurisdiction | Hogue: denies those allegations; trial court implicitly credited denial | Held: Court presumes trial court resolved factual dispute for defendant; plaintiff’s reliance on disputed in‑state abuse failed |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction over defendant would be unreasonable | Hogue: impliedly reasonable given ability to litigate and protective purpose | Hogue: did not argue unreasonableness | Held: No evidence it would be unreasonable; defendant appeared via counsel in trial court; reasonableness prong not met to defeat jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., 14 Cal.4th 434 (California recognizes constitutional due process limits on personal jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment and relatedness)
- Schlussel v. Schlussel, 141 Cal.App.3d 194 (1983) (harassing calls into California supported jurisdiction where state had special regulatory interest)
- Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 262 (2002) (distinguishes passive web postings from targeted conduct; stresses targeting the forum state)
- In re Marriage of Nadkarni, 173 Cal.App.4th 1483 (2009) (contacts that disturb plaintiff’s peace can support domestic violence protection relief)
- Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, 39 Cal.4th 95 (2006) (applies California privacy statute to nonresident’s extraterritorial conduct where state interest exists)