Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 25STCV06919, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV06919    Hearing Date: June 6, 2025    Dept: 14

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA    

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES  

DEPARTMENT 14 

I.                Background

On March 11, 2025, Plaintiffs William and Perlita Donchig (“Plaintiffs”) filed their complaint for personal injury against numerous Defendants alleging that Mr. Donchig developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing talc from approximately 1950 to the 2000s in ceramics, talc products, automotive products, and service on various naval vessels and work in naval shipyards. As against Defendant Rogers Corporation (“Rogers” or “Defendant”) Plaintiffs allege Mr. Donchig developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos containing Duroid products in California between 1950 and 1983.

On May 5, 2025, Rogers filed its motion to quash service of summons and complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On May 23, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their opposition in which they exclusively request jurisdictional discovery into Defendant’s sales of Duroid products into California. On May 30, 2025, Defendant filed its reply. On June 6, 2025 the court held a hearing.

The court finds Plaintiffs lack sufficient evidence to entitle them to jurisdictional discovery, unless Plaintiffs present admissible evidence that Mr. Donchig used Duroid products in California during the relevant period.

II.             Objections

Defendant’s Objections:

Sustained:

1.Exhibit 1 to the Seitz declaration, “a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s preliminary fact sheet” is inadmissible hearsay. This document is an out of court statement introduced for the truth of the matters asserted therein, and therefore hearsay in the absence of a valid hearsay exception. Plaintiffs offer no evidence or argument in support of the admissibility of this document. Therefore, the court finds that this document is inadmissible on this motion.

2. Exhibit 2 to the Seitz declaration, “a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Responses to General Order Standard Interrogatories in this case” is inadmissible hearsay for the same reasons described in no. 1. Moreover, Plaintiffs may not rely on their own interrogatory responses as evidence. (Code Civ. Proc § 2030.410 [“the propounding party or any party other than the responding party may use any answer or part of an answer to an interrogatory only against the responding party”].)

III.           Discussion

A.    Legal Standards

A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over them. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) The court may dismiss without prejudice the complaint in whole, or as to that defendant, when dismissal is made pursuant to Section 418.10. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (h).) 

"A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States." (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) "The Due Process Clause protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful 'contacts, ties, or relations."' (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 471-472.) A state court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a party under circumstances that would offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." (Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd., v. Superior Court of California, Solano County (1987) 480 U.S. 102, 113.) 

When a defendant moves to quash service of process on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. (Jayone Foods, Inc. v. Aekyung Industrial Co. Ltd. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 543, 553.) Once facts showing minimum contacts with the forum state are established, the defendant has the burden to demonstrate the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Ibid.) "The plaintiff must provide specific evidentiary facts, through affidavits and other authenticated documents, sufficient to allow the court to independently conclude whether jurisdiction is appropriate. [Citation.] The plaintiff cannot rely on allegations in an unverified complaint or vague and conclusory assertions of ultimate facts. [Citation.]" (Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 222.)

A defendant is subject to a state's general jurisdiction if its contacts "are so continuous and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State." (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 127.) A nonresident defendant may be subject to the specific jurisdiction of the forum "if the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits [citation], and the 'controversy is related to or "arises out of' a defendant's contacts with the forum.' [Citations.]" (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 446.) This test does not require a "causal relationship between the defendant's in-state activity and the litigation." (Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (2021) 592 U.S. 352, 362.) The "arise out" of standard "asks about causation," but "relate to" does not. (Ibid.) "[W]hen a corporation has 'continuously and deliberately exploited [a State's] market, it must reasonably anticipate being haled into [that State's] court[s]' to defend actions 'based on' products causing injury there." (Id. at p. 364.) 

B.    Personal Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs do not argue they have presented sufficient evidence to establish jurisdiction over Defendant. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that they have presented sufficient evidence to entitle them to conduct jurisdictional discovery. (Opposition at p. 3 [“Plaintiff requests this motion be continued to provide fair opportunity to conduct discovery into personal jurisdiction, and to determine if the Duroid gaskets to which Plaintiffs allege exposure were directed at California by Rogers.”].) Accordingly, the court considers only whether Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to entitle them to conduct jurisdictional discovery.

C.    Jurisdictional Discovery

“A plaintiff attempting to assert jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is entitled to an opportunity to conduct discovery of the jurisdictional facts necessary to sustain its burden of proof[.]” (Hardell v. Vanzyl (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 960, 975-976; Goehring v. Superior Court (Bernier) (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 894.) This court has “discretion to continue the hearing on a motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction to allow the plaintiff to conduct discovery on jurisdictional issues.” (HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1173.) However, “In order to prevail on a motion for a continuance for jurisdictional discovery, the plaintiff should demonstrate that discovery is likely to lead to the production of evidence of facts establishing jurisdiction.” (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 127.)

Plaintiffs argue they are entitled to jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiffs contend that they possess evidence that Defendant purposefully availed itself of California, but lack evidence regarding whether “the Duroid gaskets to which they allege Mr. Donchig was exposed were directed at California by Rogers.” (Opposition at p. 8.)

In reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs fail to present sufficient evidence to show they are entitled to jurisdictional discovery. Defendant does not dispute that it purposefully availed itself of the California market. (Reply at p. 3 [“Rogers’s motion does not assert a lack of minimum contacts with California—it argues solely that Plaintiffs do not possess evidence that their injury ‘arose from or related to’ Rogers’s contacts with California.”].) However, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs failed to present any admissible evidence “identifying any Rogers-distributed product with which they claim Mr. Donchig worked in California.” (Reply at p. 6.) Defendant further argues: “In order to establish California’s jurisdiction, Plaintiffs need to show that Mr. Donchig worked around an asbestos-containing product line Rogers supplied to California. Any discovery propounded upon Rogers regarding that issue would serve no purpose precisely because Rogers cannot know what Mr. Donchig did, whether he encountered a Rogers product, where he was when he did so, when the encounter occurred, or, most importantly, what Rogers product he might have encountered.” (Id. at p. 7.)

Here, the court finds that Plaintiffs did not satisfy their burden to show they are entitled to conduct targeted and limited jurisdictional discovery into Defendant’s sales of Duroid products to California. Plaintiffs present no admissible evidence that Mr. Donchig used Duroid products in California. Significantly, any evidence or knowledge regarding the products Mr. Donchig used is exclusively within the possession of Plaintiffs or persons known to Plaintiffs. Accordingly, jurisdictional discovery would not be likely to produce admissible evidence of facts establishing jurisdiction because it would not cure the absence of admissible evidence regarding Mr. Donchig’s use of the products at issue.

IV.           Conclusion

Plaintiffs fail to present evidence sufficient to satisfy their burden to show the existence of personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Plaintiffs likewise fail to show evidence sufficient to show they are entitled to jurisdictional discovery. However, the court will inquire at the June 6 hearing whether Plaintiffs possess admissible evidence of where and when Mr. Donchig used Duroid products manufactured by Defendant. If Plaintiffs possess this evidence, or could reasonably produce such evidence, the court may consider providing Plaintiffs a brief continuance to file a supplemental declaration containing this product identification evidence. In the absences of more specific product identification evidence, Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint will be granted. The court would dismiss the complaint against Defendant without prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (h) 

            Moving party Defendant Rogers Corporation is ordered to give notice.