Hogue v. Hogue
224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 651, 16 Cal.App.5th 833 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A non-resident defendant is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California for a domestic violence restraining order when they purposefully direct an act of abuse, such as a disturbing video message, at a person within California, because domestic violence is an 'exceptional' type of conduct subject to 'special regulation' by the state.
Facts:
- Marla Gwen Hogue and Jerry Dean Hogue were longtime residents of California before their 1996 marriage and continued to live there until moving to Georgia in early 2015.
- While living in Georgia in late 2015, Jerry Hogue engaged in multiple acts of domestic violence against Marla Hogue, including choking her and giving her two black eyes.
- In late December 2015, Marla Hogue fled Georgia with her mother's assistance and returned to live in California.
- After Marla Hogue had returned to California, Jerry Hogue, who remained in Georgia, sent her a video message via social media depicting him pretending to shoot himself in the mouth with a shotgun.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Marla Gwen Hogue sought a domestic violence restraining order against Defendant Jerry Dean Hogue in a California trial court in February 2016.
- Defendant Jerry Dean Hogue, through counsel, made a special appearance to file a motion to quash the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion to quash, finding it lacked personal jurisdiction over him.
- Plaintiff Marla Gwen Hogue, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a California court have specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant in a domestic violence case when the defendant, from out of state, directs an act of abuse (a mock suicide video) at the plaintiff located in California?
Opinions:
Majority - Butz, J.
Yes. A California court has specific personal jurisdiction because the defendant's conduct falls within the 'special regulation' basis for jurisdiction. The Domestic Violence Prevention Act signifies California's strong state interest in regulating the 'exceptional' conduct of domestic abuse. By purposefully sending a video of a mock suicide to the plaintiff while she was in California, the defendant directed his conduct at the state, causing a harmful effect. The court reasoned this was analogous to 'shooting a gun into the state' and was sufficient to disturb the plaintiff's peace of mind under the statute, thus creating the necessary minimum contacts for jurisdiction without being unreasonable.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the 'special regulation' doctrine for personal jurisdiction in the context of domestic violence and modern communication. It establishes that an abuser cannot escape a state's jurisdiction by committing acts of abuse, such as electronic harassment, from across state lines if those acts are purposefully directed at a victim within the state. This precedent is significant for protecting domestic violence victims who have fled to California, allowing them to use the state's courts to obtain restraining orders against out-of-state abusers who continue their harassment electronically.
Unlock the full brief for Hogue v. Hogue