1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IMPULSE SERVICES, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT – 1
Jason Cross
Attorneys’ Business Address
City, ST ZIP Code
Phone | Fax
Email
Acting in pro per on behalf of Impulse Services, LLC
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
BALBOA CAPITAL CORPORATION, A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
IMPULSE SERVICES, LLC, A LOUISIANA
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; JOSHUA
O’NEAL GIBBONS, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND
DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants
Case No.: 30-2022-01262477-CU-CL-CJC
IMPULSE SERVICES, LLC’S MOTION
TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
NOTICE OF IMPULSE SERVICES, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on ________________ (Date), at __________ (am/pm), or as
soon thereafter as Impulse Services, LLC (hereinafter referred to as “Impulse”) will move this
Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Motion will be made on the grounds that this forum cannot exercise personal jurisdiction
over Impulse because it does not have the requisite minimum contacts with the State of
California. This Motion to Dismiss is based upon this Notice, the attached Memorandum of
Points and Authorities, and all records and pleadings as may be presented at or before the
hearing of this Motion.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IMPULSE SERVICES, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT – 2
Dated this ____ day of July, 2022.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Jason Cross
Acting in pro per on behalf of Impulse Services, LLC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IMPULSE SERVICES, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT – 3
Jason Cross
Attorneys’ Business Address
City, ST ZIP Code
Phone | Fax
Email
Acting in pro per on behalf of Impulse Services, LLC
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
BALBOA CAPITAL CORPORATION, A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
IMPULSE SERVICES, LLC, A LOUISIANA
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; JOSHUA
O’NEAL GIBBONS, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND
DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants
Case No.: 30-2022-01262477-CU-CL-CJC
IMPULSE SERVICES, LLC’S MOTION
TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Impulse Services, LLC, one of the Defendants in this case, and files this
Motion to Dismiss Complaint, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:
1. Impulse is a limited liability company registered to conduct business in the State
of Louisiana.
2. Impulse is not registered or qualified to do business in the State of California.
Neither does it have any officers, directors, employees or independent contractors based in
California. Impulse lacks a California agent for service of process and it does not direct any
advertising toward California residents.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IMPULSE SERVICES, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT – 4
3. Impulse has offices in Louisiana, but no offices or facilities in California, nor
does it have any telephone or facsimile listings or mailing addresses in California.
4. Impulse does not maintain any books or records in California. It has no bank
accounts or tangible property or real property in California. It has no sales in California, has had
no California income and has not paid any California income tax.
5. None of Impulse’s officers, directors or employees reside or are domiciled in
California. No meetings of Impulse’s management board or equity holders have been held in
California.
6. As Plaintiff, Balboa Capital Corporation bears the burden of proving that
minimum contacts exist between Impulse and California so as to justify an exercise of personal
jurisdiction over Impulse. Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.
3d 1122, 1128-29 (2003).
7. An inquiry into personal jurisdiction centers on a defendant’s contacts with the
forum state, and is dictated by due process concerns. As the United States Supreme Court has
long held, the assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant will comport with
constitutional due process only if the defendant has sufficient “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, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
8. If a non-state defendant engages in “continuous and systematic general business
contacts” that “approximate physical presence” in the forum state, general jurisdiction may be
exercised. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801 (2004).
9. Impulse has not purposely availed itself of the privilege to do business in
California or purposefully directed its activities towards California. “Purposeful availment” and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IMPULSE SERVICES, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT – 5
“purposeful direction” are two distinct concepts. Purposeful availment is “most often used in
suits sounding in contract” and “typically consists of evidence of the defendant’s actions in the
forum, such as executing or performing a contract there” by which a defendant “purposefully
avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the
benefits and protections of its laws.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802.
10. Plaintiff cannot satisfy the above test. Impulse has not received any “benefit,
privilege, or protection from California in connection with [the claims asserted in the lawsuit],
and the traditional quid pro quo justification for finding purposeful availment thus does not
apply.” Id. At 803.
11. The purposeful direction test is evaluated under the three-part “effects” test based
on Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S. Ct. 1482 (1984). The test “requires that the defendant
allegedly have: (1) committed an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, (3)
causing harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state.”
Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 803.
12. Plaintiff cannot show that Impulse committed any alleged intentional act that was
“expressly aimed” at California, because there was no “individualized targeting” of California
residents by Impulse with respect to the claims at issue. Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta
National, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1088 (2000).
13. Plaintiff also does not satisfy the second prong of the limited jurisdiction test,
which requires it to show that, but for Impulse’s California contacts, Plaintiff’s claims would not
have arisen. Doe v. American Nat’l Red Cross, 112 F.3d 1048, 1051 (1997).
14. As affirmed above, Impulse is not alleged to have engaged in any conduct in
California, so it did not necessarily cause any harm that occurred in California.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IMPULSE SERVICES, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT – 6
REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Impulse Services, LLC,
respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant him the following reliefs:
a. GRANT this Motion to Dismiss Complaint in its entirety;
b. ENTER an Order dismissing all claims against Impulse in the Complaint filed by
Balboa Capital Corporation; and
c. GRANT Impulse Services, LLC, such equitable and further relief as this Court
deems necessary and proper.
Dated this ____ day of July, 2022.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Jason Cross
Acting in pro per on behalf of Impulse Services, LLC
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )