Filed 2/24/22 Wiener v. Perez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA STEVEN DONALD WIENER, D078297 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2019- 00006513-CU-FR-CTL) RAPHAEL GAMA PEREZ, et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Randa Trapp, Judge. Affirmed. Downey Brand, Jay-Allen Eisen; Zuccaro Law Firm, Emil A. Zuccaro; Law Offices of Cathy E. Crosson, Cathy E. Crosson; Law Offices of Clyde DeWitt and Clyde F. DeWitt for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Offices of Philip H. Dyson and Philip H. Dyson for Defendants and Respondents. INTRODUCTION Steven Donald Wiener (Steve1) appeals from an order quashing service of summons on the named non-California defendants in his lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction. In his lawsuit, Steve alleged he formed a partnership with his father, Donald Joseph Wiener Coss (Donald), in the 1980s to purchase land in Mexico, where his father lived. Steve alleged Christine Louise Wiener (Christine), Donald’s daughter from another marriage, and Raphael Gama Perez (Gama), Donald’s lawyer in Mexico, conspired with Donald to defraud him of his interest in the Mexico real estate investments. At the time of the alleged fraud, Steve claimed Donald was living in California. Steve, a California resident, sued Gama, Christine in her individual capacity and as executor for the Estate of Donald Joseph Wiener Coss (the Estate), and the Estate itself (collectively, Respondents). Because Gama and Christine are legal residents of Mexico and are not physically located in the United States, Steve served them with the summons and complaint in Mexico, in accordance with the Hague Convention. Respondents moved to quash the service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. They asserted that Gama and Christine are, and were at all relevant times, legal residents of Mexico; the land at issue is in Mexico; Donald’s will, which Steve seeks to invalidate, was executed in Mexico; and the totality of the Estate is in Mexico. Respondents asserted they have not had sufficient minimum contacts with California, such that exercise of jurisdiction would not comport with due process under the state and federal 1 As the parties have, we refer to members of the Wiener family by their first names to avoid any confusion. 2 constitutions. The trial court granted the motion. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that California does not have personal jurisdiction over any of the Respondents. We, therefore, affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. The Underlying Complaint The following summary of allegations is taken from the underlying unverified complaint.2 Donald was a successful entrepreneur in the adult entertainment industry with a business headquartered in San Diego. In the 1970s, Donald moved from …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals