Aulisio v. Thornburg
Filed 3/16/06 Aulisio v. Thornburg CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| ANTHONY AULISIO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KATHLEEN V. THORNBURG, Defendant and Respondent. | G035135 (Super. Ct. No. 04CC10555) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, John M. Watson, Judge. Reversed.
Anthony Aulisio, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Kenneth Eugene Fait for Defendant and Respondent.
* * *
Defendant Kathleen V. Thornburg[1] moved to quash service of summons on the complaint of plaintiff Anthony Aulisio on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. During the hearing on the motion, the trial court expressed its belief Thornburg had sufficient contacts to support personal jurisdiction in California, but that Idaho (where a related case was pending) was the more convenient forum. The trial court took the matter under submission and later issued a minute order granting the motion to quash. Aulisio alone appealed from that order.
We reverse because Thornburg had sufficient contacts with California to support personal jurisdiction. The trial court did not grant a motion based on inconvenient forum, and, therefore, we do not address whether California or Idaho is the more convenient forum to hear Aulisio's claims.
Facts
Thornburg asserts she has been a resident of Idaho since 1988. But her federal income tax returns for the years 1994 through 1999 give a post office box address in Newport Beach, California as her home address. At least through December 31, 2002, Thornburg maintained a checking account at Wells Fargo Bank, and account statements identify Newport Beach, California as her address. For 2001, Thornburg filed California nonresident state income tax returns identifying her residence as Ketchum, Idaho.
In 1990, Thornburg married Kenneth E. Fait in Taiwan. In 2000, Thornburg brought an action in Idaho to dissolve the marriage.
In March 2003, Thornburg entered into a written contract with Link, Murrel & Company (LMC) for provision of expert witness testimony and related analysis in the dissolution action. The engagement letter was addressed to Thornburg at an address in Ketchum, Idaho, where she signed the letter. LMC is a certified public accountancy firm located in Irvine, California. Aulisio is a California certified public accountant and has been associated with LMC for several years. Aulisio was one of several LMC accountants assigned to work on Thornburg's matter.
It was anticipated that LMC would provide expert witness testimony for Thornburg at the trial of her marital dissolution action in Idaho. All of the forensic and accounting work performed by LMC and Aulisio pursuant to the agreement with Thornburg was conducted, however, in California. Neither Aulisio nor any other LMC member traveled to Idaho in connection with providing services pursuant to the agreement with Thornburg. In 2002, Aulisio met with Thornburg several times at her home in Newport Beach.
Thornburg contended LMC and Aulisio were paid about $873,000 in connection with her marital dissolution action but failed to provide usable work. Thornburg also contended LMC or Aulisio forced her first dissolution attorney to withdraw as counsel by disclosing confidential information. The cost to bring new counsel up to speed, Thornburg claimed, was about $250,000.
In the marital dissolution action, the Idaho court reviewed LMC billings to Thornburg, questioned LMC's billing practices, and ruled on issues related to the appropriateness of the fees LMC billed. The Idaho court ordered that $43,605 be held in trust by Debra Carnahan as payment in full for LMC's services.
Proceedings in the Trial Court
LMC and Aulisio filed a complaint in California against Thornburg and Carnahan for breach of contract, common counts, and imposition of a constructive trust to recover money allegedly owed under the agreement and to recover the amount held in trust by Carnahan. Thornburg moved to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. Carnahan did not move to quash or join in Thornburg's motion: The record does not disclose whether Carnahan ever appeared in the case.
At the outset of the hearing on the motion to quash on January 24, 2005, the court stated, â€
