Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 24STCV26028, Date: 2025-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV26028    Hearing Date: June 10, 2025    Dept: 14

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA¿¿¿¿ 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES¿¿ 

¿ 

DEPARTMENT 14¿ 

¿ 

¿ 

¿¿ 

¿ 

¿ 

            On October 7, 2024, Plaintiffs Matthew and Elizabeth Compton (“Plaintiffs”) filed their complaint for personal injury alleging Mr. Compton developed mesothelioma from occupational exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing products during his service in the United States Navy, and work as an electrician, and non-occupational exposure to home remodeling products. As to the moving Defendant Vanderbilt, Minerals, LLC (“Vanderbilt” or “Defendant”) Plaintiffs allege that Vanderbilt and its predecessors-in-interest Western Talc Company and R.T. Vanderbilt Co. supplied asbestos contaminated to DAP, Inc. for use in its DAP Caulk that Mr. Compton used in home repair from 1979 to 1982.

            On December 12, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to quash service of summons and complaint. On December 13, 2024, another defendant filed a notice of removal, which stayed all pending motions. On February 7, 2025 the case was remanded back to this court. On February 12, 2025, Defendant refiled its motion to quash. On February 26, Plaintiffs filed their opposition. Defendant failed to appear at the noticed hearing date on March 11, and the motion was taken off calendar. (March 11, 2024 Minute Order.)

On March 21, 2025, Defendant filed this motion to quash service of summons and complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On March 24, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their opposition. On April 1, 2025, Defendant filed its reply.

On April 9, 2025, the court held a hearing. The same day the court issued a minute order continuing the hearing to permit time for Plaintiffs to conduct jurisdictional discovery. The April 9, 2025 minute order stated: “Plaintiffs did not provide sufficient admissible evidence to show that Plaintiffs’ claims arose out of or related to Defendant’s contacts with California. However, the inadmissible evidence currently before the court is sufficient to show that Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct targeted and focused jurisdictional discovery into the connections between Defendant and the DAP caulking products at issue in this case” (April 9, 2025 minute order at p. 9.) The hearing was continued June 10, 2025 with supplemental opposition and reply due on statutory time.

On May 28, 2025, Plaintiffs filed supplemental opposition explaining that they had propounded jurisdictional discovery on DAP but that due to circumstances beyond Plaintiffs’ control, DAP had not yet provided responses to written discovery. Plaintiffs therefore requested an additional brief continuance to permit them to incorporate these discovery responses into their substantive opposition. As of the date of the hearing, Vanderbilt has not filed its reply or opposed the additional continuance. On June 10, 2025 the court held a hearing.

            Here, the court finds that a further brief continuance is warranted under the circumstances. Plaintiffs timely propounded discovery on DAP on April 14, 2025 as contemplated in this court’s April 9, 2025 order. (White Decl. ¶ 3.) As of the date Plaintiffs opposition was due, Plaintiffs had not yet received responses to their discovery. (White Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs appear to have acted reasonably and diligently in seeking discovery. (Ibid [“On May 14, 2025, DAP, Inc. requested an extension for its responses to Plaintiffs’ jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiffs granted a brief extension until May 20, 2025. After that deadline passed, Plaintiffs followed up with counsel for DAP on May 21, 2025. Counsel for DAP indicated that due to an emergency, the person responsible for the discovery responses had not completed and served them. Plaintiffs requested that DAP serve discovery responses by May 27, 2025 in order to oppose the present Motion to Quash from Vanderbilt.”].)  Therefore, the court finds that a further continuance to permit Plaintiffs to receive and incorporate these discovery responses into their supplemental opposition is appropriate here.   

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to quash is continued to July 10, 2025 to permit time for targeted and focused jurisdictional discovery.

            Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.