Page 1
Court of Appeal:
California Has Jurisdiction Over Texan Based on Postings
Minimal Contacts Found Because Subject of Messages Is a California Resident
By a MetNews Staff Writer
California has jurisdiction over a Texas resident who has no contacts with California, has never been a resident here and has no assets in the state, but who posted on social media false and disparaging messages about a fashion model who is a denizen of Los Angeles County, Div. Five of this district’s Court of Appeal has held.
Acting Presiding Justice Carl H. Moor authored the unpublished opinion, filed Tuesday. It affirms a two-year domestic violence restraining order (“DVRO”) imposed on March 8, 2023, by Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Laura Streimer, on Andrew Ackerman, plaintiff Akisha Petties’s former fiancé.
The opinion also affirms Streimer’s Jan. 4, 2023 denial of Ackerman’s motion to quash service of process for lack of jurisdiction.
Ackerman argued on appeal that “he did not target California in any way and his suit related conduct did not pertain to California,” pointing out that he “did not step a foot into the State of California relative to the underlying controversy” and that all conduct on his part “which is the subject of the underlying controversy occurred online.”
The online postings in issue commenced after the parties, who met in a strip club in Austin in 2015, broke off their relationship in 2021.
Ackerman’s Position
The defendant/appellant argued:
“ANDREW ACKERMAN…was well aware that AKISHA PETTIES travelled frequently….Therefore, when ANDREW ACKERMAN engaged in conduct on the internet, ANDREW ACKERMAN did not even know if AKISHA PETTIES was in the State of California….
“It is evident that ANDREW ACKERMAN had no connection whatsoever to the State of California. ANDREW ACKERMAN did not engage in any activity in the State of California and certainly did not engage in any activity which targeted the State of California. The only connection to the State of California ANDREW ACKERMAN had was that AKISHA PETTIES happened to have filed her petition in the State of California. In fact, even AKISHA PETTIES’ own listed address in the petition she filed is an address in the State of Texas which is where the parties met….Therefore, given that ANDREW ACKERMAN had zero connection to the State of California and did not engage in any activity in the State of California, the Trial Court violated ANDREW ACKERMAN’s due process rights when it asserted personal jurisdiction over him.”
Moor’s Opinion
Moor said that while Ackerman failed to provide a transcript of the hearing, “[t]here is ample evidence in the appellate record that has been provided, however, to support finding that Ackerman is subject to specific jurisdiction in California because he purposefully directed conduct at California to disturb Petties’ peace of mind.”
Rejecting Ackerman’s assertion that he did not know Petties’s whereabouts when he posted his messages, the justice said that evidence shows that the defendant was aware that his then-fiancee had moved to California in October 2020, at one point bought airline tickets her to fly from California to Texas for a visit, and there was discord during their relationship as to whether he should move to California or she should return to Texas.
Moor wrote:
“The suit-related conduct was creating a web site and social media profiles that incorporated Petties’ name, and using these accounts to post embarrassing and derogatory information about Petties without her permission. Knowing Petties was a resident of California, his conduct was targeted at California to disturb her peace of mind. By contacting her friends, family, employer, agent, and coworkers to view the embarrassing and derogatory material posted on his accounts, he also targeted several other individuals living in California. His suit-related conduct was directed at a California audience, allowing California to exercise specific jurisdiction over Ackerman in this case. The trial court properly denied the motion to quash service of the complaint.”
Prior Restraint
Ackerman argued that the fact that, under Streimer’s order, he “cannot even reference AKISHA PETTIES online in any capacity is a prior restraint” in contravention of his First Amendment rights. He maintained that “comments online which are belittling” are nonetheless protected speech.
Moor responded:
“Ackerman’s ability to engage in activity that has been determined to constitute abuse is not the type of ‘speech’ that is afforded constitutional protection.”
Prohibiting false and defamatory comments does not constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint, he declared.
The jurist noted that Ackerman “has not challenged the scope of the trial court’s order, as he expressly conceded at oral argument, but rather the court’s imposition of any restraint on his speech.”
The case is Petties v. Ackerman, B328526.
Representing Ackerman was downtown Los Angeles attorney Christian M. Contreras.
Petties was in pro per. The address she used in the Court of Appeal was one in Austin, Texas.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company