Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV37000, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37000    Hearing Date: June 28, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Specially-Appearing Defendant Cosentino Group, S.A.’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons.

BACKGROUND

JUAN GONZALEZ-MORIN (Decedent) and MARIA SANCHEZ-QUEZADA, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Defendants, alleging that Decedent’s exposures to stone products in his work as a stone countertop installer of Defendants’ products in California ultimately caused his death.

Specially-Appearing Cosentino Group, S.A. n/k/a Cosentino, S.A. (“Defendant”) moves to quash service of the Summons and Complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

By order dated 1/24/24, a prior Department denied the motion to quash, finding that Defendant was properly served and that the court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the portion of the 1/24/24 order that denied Defendant’s request for jurisdictional discovery. Notably, Defendant did not challenge the prior Department’s finding that Defendant was properly served. On 3/11/24, this Court allowed jurisdictional discovery, following an alternative writ about vacating the prior Department’s 1/4/24 order summarily denying the motion to quash. This Court also ordered that the parties could file additional briefing, which both parties did.  

LEGAL STANDARD

When a defendant files a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction, “the burden of proof is placed upon the plaintiff to establish the facts of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.”  Aquila, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 556, 568. Personal jurisdiction may be general or specific. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 445.

Relevant here, specific jurisdiction exists when a defendant’s “minimum contacts” with the state shows that the defendant purposefully directed its acts to the state, “that the cause of action [is] related to or arise or result from the acts or contacts in the forum, and that the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the forum would be reasonable.” Muckle v. Superior Ct. (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 218, 227–28. Evidence consisting of “vague assertions of ultimate fact rather than specific evidentiary facts” is insufficient to meet the burden to show minimum contacts. Paneno v. Centres for Academic Programmes Abroad Ltd. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1447, 1454.

ANALYSIS

As explained above, the prior Department already ruled that Defendant was properly served and Defendant did not challenge that ruling in its petition for writ of mandate. Thus, the only issue left after this Court’s order granting jurisdictional discovery is whether Plaintiffs have established personal jurisdiction.

In the initial round of briefing, Defendant objected to Plaintiffs’ evidence largely consisting of printouts from www.cosentino.com and involving other companies. Defendant also represented that it is a holding company that never conducted business in California, never manufactured or marketed products, and never owned, maintained or controlled www.cosentino.com. In opposition, Plaintiffs recognized that many of the exhibits attached to the declaration of Raphael Metzger, derived from Cosentino’s website, are not authenticated. This record is wholly insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.

After the Court granted Plaintiffs the opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiffs deposed Defendant’s PMQ. Plaintiffs’ supplemental opposition merely references other court decisions in support of valid service on Defendant. But that issue is moot because Defendant never challenged the prior court order that Defendant was properly served. In this case, the Court has received no supplemental opposition addressing supportive evidence obtained after the deposition, pursuant to the appellate court’s alternative writ. For more substantive analysis, the Court incorporates by reference a ruling this date, addressing the post-discovery evidence, as to a similar motion to quash summons by Consentino, in Maciel v. Alpha, case number 23STCV12007. As demonstrated in that order, Plaintiffs’ additional jurisdictional discovery, i.e., the deposition of Defendant’s PMQ, has not uncovered evidence to support a finding of personal jurisdiction over Defendant.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted.