ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff
204 Cal. Rptr. 3d 566
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- ViaView (California corporation) filed a workplace-violence restraining-order petition under Code Civ. Proc. § 527.8 against Thomas Retzlaff, a Texas/Arizona resident, alleging online posts and threats directed at ViaView’s CEO, James McGibney.
- Trial court issued a TRO and later reissued it; it added McGibney’s daughter and ViaView’s attorney as protected persons and ordered removal of specified blog content.
- Retzlaff was allegedly served, then filed a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction and, the same day, moved for a continuance; afterwards he filed an anti-SLAPP motion and other papers.
- At a consolidated July 29 hearing the trial court denied the motion to quash, deeming Retzlaff to have made a general appearance by filing the anti-SLAPP motion, and then denied the anti-SLAPP motion and granted a permanent injunction.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal concluded Retzlaff had properly filed the motion to quash first and that under CCP § 418.10(e) his subsequent filings did not constitute a general appearance; ViaView failed to present admissible evidence of Retzlaff’s minimum contacts with California, so jurisdiction was lacking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Retzlaff made a general appearance and waived jurisdictional objection | ViaView: Retzlaff’s post-motion filings (anti-SLAPP, participation at hearing) amounted to a general appearance | Retzlaff: He filed the motion to quash first; § 418.10(e) prevents subsequent acts from constituting a general appearance until denial | Held: No general appearance. Under § 418.10(e) acts after or concurrent with a timely motion to quash do not waive jurisdiction unless/ until the motion is denied (writ treated as pending) |
| Whether California courts have specific personal jurisdiction over Retzlaff | ViaView: Retzlaff targeted a California resident, published McGibney’s CA address and threats directed at San Jose, creating minimum contacts | Retzlaff: Resident of TX/AZ with no California contacts; denied making the threats; moved to quash | Held: ViaView failed to meet its evidentiary burden—no admissible proof of purposeful availment or that online posts were expressly aimed at California; specific jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether trial court’s denial of motion to quash was appealable/remedy | ViaView: proceeded on merits; order on motion should be treated in appeal | Retzlaff: writ review under § 418.10(c) is the appropriate vehicle; time to seek writ not yet run | Held: Court treated the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate (Olson factors) because writ remains available and appeal here would be duplicative/dilatory |
| Whether evidence submitted opposing the motion to quash was admissible | ViaView: submitted declarations and verified petition to show contacts and threats | Retzlaff: challenged evidentiary sufficiency and form | Held: McGibney’s declaration failed to comply with § 2015.5 and ViaView’s corporate verification cannot substitute; therefore ViaView did not meet its burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Air Machine Com SRL v. Superior Court, 186 Cal.App.4th 414 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (§ 418.10(e) permits filing merits motions without creating a general appearance until motion to quash is finally denied)
- Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., 14 Cal.4th 434 (Cal. 1996) (framework for minimum contacts and specific vs. general jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2014) (specific-jurisdiction inquiry focuses on defendant’s contacts with the forum, not plaintiff’s contacts)
- Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 262 (Cal. 2002) (specific-jurisdiction principles and relatedness requirement)
- State Farm Gen. Ins. Co. v. JT’s Frames, Inc., 181 Cal.App.4th 429 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (interpretation of § 418.10 and waiver where writ proceedings are finally resolved)
- Burdick v. Superior Court, 233 Cal.App.4th 8 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (online postings knowing plaintiff’s residence insufficient absent evidence the posts were expressly aimed at the forum)
- Factor Health Mgmt. v. Superior Court, 132 Cal.App.4th 246 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (acts before filing motion to quash can constitute general appearance)
- Roy v. Superior Court, 127 Cal.App.4th 337 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (same)
- McCorkle v. City of Los Angeles, 70 Cal.2d 252 (Cal. 1969) (writ of mandate is the exclusive pre-judgment review for orders denying motions to quash)