Judge David S. Cunningham, Case Number: 19STCV22935, Date: 2025-05-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: David S. Cunningham, Case: 19STCV22935, Date: 2025-05-06 Tentative Ruling

Moving Party: Altria Group, Inc., et al. (collectively “Altria” or “Altria Defendants”)

Opposing Party: Blake Arruda, Frank Dedmon, Dominick Zimmerman, Tariq Hassan, Maximillian Samike, Benjamin Hayt, Garrett Challburg, and Joseph Siravo (collectively “Plaintiffs”)

Altria’s motion to quash is granted as to Plaintiffs Blake Arruda, Frank Dedmon, Dominick Zimmerman, and Tariq Hassan.

The hearing is continued as to Plaintiffs Maximillian Samike, Benjamin Hayt, Garrett Challburg, and Joseph Siravo.

Here, Altria moves to quash service of process, claiming the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.[1]

There are “two types of personal jurisdiction[,]” general and specific. (Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (2017) 582 U.S. 255, 262 (“BMS”).)

“A state court may exercise general jurisdiction only when a defendant is ‘essentially at home’ in the State. [Citation.]” (Preciado v. Freightliner Custom Chassis Corp. (2023) 87 Cal.App.5^th 964, 976.) “General jurisdiction, as its name implies, extends to ‘any and all claims’ brought against a defendant. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “Those claims need not relate to the forum State or the defendant's activity there; they may concern events and conduct anywhere in the world.” (Ibid.) “But that breadth imposes a correlative limit: Only a select ‘set of affiliations with a forum’ will expose a defendant to such sweeping jurisdiction. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “In what [the Supreme Court] ha[s] called the ‘paradigm’ case, an individual is subject to general jurisdiction in her place of domicile. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “And the ‘equivalent’ forums for a corporation are its place of incorporation and principal place of business.” (Ibid.)

“When determining whether specific jurisdiction exists, courts consider the ‘relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.’” (Halyard Health, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5^th 1062, 1070.) “[C]ourts focus on the nature and quality (not the quantity) of defendant’s activity in the forum state.” (Edmond & Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group June 2023 Update) ¶ 3:240.) “[S]ingle or occasional acts of the corporate agent in a state” may be adequate as long as the lawsuit relates to the “in-state activity.” (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 127 (“Daimler”); see also Edmond & Karnow, supra, at ¶ 3:240.1 [“Provided a ‘substantial connection’ with the forum is created thereby, even a single act may support specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident.”].)

To exercise specific jurisdiction, a court must find purposeful availment (the defendant made purposeful contacts with the forum), relatedness (the litigation arises from or relates to the defendant’s forum contacts), and reasonableness (the forum’s “assertion” of specific jurisdiction “comport[s] with ‘fair play and substantial justice’”). (Halyard Health, supra, 43 Cal.App.4^th at 1070.)

Plaintiff bears the initial burden to establish general jurisdiction and/or specific jurisdiction. (See Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4^th 434, 449.)

The Court incorporates the July 29, 2022 ruling granting Altria’s motion to quash and the October 18, 2022 ruling denying reconsideration. Those rulings stand, and the Court declines to reanalyze the evidence that was included in those records (the Court will only consider new evidence). (See Kouba Reply Decl., Ex. MM [attaching chart that lists exhibits submitted by Plaintiffs that were and were not part of the prior records].)

The Court also declines to follow the federal court’s April 29, 2022 summary-judgment decision because:

* the discussion of personal jurisdiction is brief (see Haberman Decl., Ex. 1, pp. 15-17 [devoting two, double-spaced pages to personal jurisdiction]);

* the record appears to have been different (almost none of the evidence that this Court analyzed is cited) (see ibid.); and

* the summary-judgment standard – requiring all reasonable inferences to be drawn in the plaintiff’s favor – is different than the motion-to-quash standard. (See, e.g., Reply, pp. 10-11.)

General jurisdiction is unsatisfied. Each Altria Defendant is incorporated and headquartered in Virginia. (See Motion, p. 3.)

The July 29^th ruling contains an extensive discussion of BMS. The Court continues to believe that “the motivation for granting review in BMS was to rein in the California courts’ expansive take on specific jurisdiction, especially application of the ‘sliding scale approach.’” (7/29/22 Statement of Decision, p. 10.”) The High Court was “focus[ed] on where the nonresidents obtained, ingested, and suffered injury from Plavix.” (Ibid.) “It is apparent that the majority wanted to send a message – generally limiting the available forums for specific jurisdiction to the states where the nonresidents encountered the product and were harmed by it – to avoid future lower court rulings ‘resembl[ing] a loose and spurious form of general jurisdiction.’” (Ibid. [quoting BMS].) Indeed, “[a]t its core, the decision appears to form a general rule barring the exercise of specific jurisdiction against an out-of-state defendant if the out-of-state plaintiff buys the product outside the forum, uses it outside the forum, and is harmed by it outside the forum[.]” (Ibid.)

Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (2021) 592 U.S. 351 (“Ford”) “is congruent.” (Ibid.) “In footnote 3, the Supreme Court rejects the notion that ‘a California court could hear a claim against Ford brought by an Ohio plaintiff based on an accident occurring in Ohio involving a car purchased in Ohio.’” (Ibid. [quoting Ford]; cf. Ford, supra, 592 U.S. at 1027-1028 [stating that Daimler provides “an illustration – even a paradigm example – of how specific jurisdiction works”: “A California court would exercise specific jurisdiction ‘if a California plaintiff, injured in a California accident involving a Daimler-manufactured vehicle, sued Daimler [in that court] alleging that the vehicle was defectively designed’”], italics and bolding added.)

The October 18^th ruling discusses Daimler Trucks North America, LLC v. Superior Court (2022) 80 Cal.App.5^th 946 (“Daimler Trucks”). The Court of Appeal found jurisdiction present there because:

* Daimler manufactured and marketed Freightliner Cascadia trucks for “intercontinental long haul[s]” and “sold the California market on trips that emanate from California to other states and back” [citation];

* the plaintiff’s employer purchased the subject truck in California [citation];

* the plaintiff drove the truck in California, “as the outbound leg of his travel that resulted in his injuries began in California” [citation]; [and]

* the plaintiffs “sought damages for loss of consortium and injuries treated in California” [citations].

Given these rules, the Court finds that Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden. It is undisputed that these Plaintiffs reside outside California, purchased their JLI products outside California, used their JLI products outside California, and suffered their alleged injuries outside California. (See, e.g., Motion, pp. 7-8.) None of them alleges purchase or use inside the state. (See ibid.)

Plaintiffs’ new evidence does not change the result. The key point is that these Plaintiffs’ purchases, uses, and injuries happened in other states. Plaintiffs fail to cite any new evidence that shows that Altria participated in distributing JLI products from California “to Plaintiffs’ states and purchase locations[.]” (7/29/22 Statement of Decision, p. 15.)

Samike, Hayt, Challburg, and Siravo have declared under oath that they purchased and/or used JLI products in California. (See, e.g., Motion, pp. 14-15 [conceding this fact].)

Altria contends the Court should ignore the declarations because they are inconsistent with Plaintiffs’ fact sheets and complaints. (See id. at p. 15.)

None of these individuals alleges that they first used JUUL in California, became addicted to JUUL in California, resided in California during the their alleged JUUL purchases, or incurred damages in California. [Citation.] Furthermore, without information on when, where, and why a Plaintiff purchased JUUL in California, it is impossible to conclude that Plaintiff’s claim arises out of or relates to any action Altria took in or directed at California. The Altria Defendants have never been the only provider of distribution and retail services to JLI. To the contrary, they are alleged to have provided only limited services, for little over a year, at only certain locations. [Citation.] The overwhelming majority of JUUL products thus were distributed, purchased, and consumed without any involvement by the Altria Defendants.

Plaintiffs disagree. They contend the deposition testimonies of Samike, Hayt, Challburg, and Siravo corroborate the declarations. (See Opposition, pp. 28-29.)

On balance, the current record is inadequate. For the most part, the cited deposition excerpts are not attached to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration. (See Opposition, p. 29; see also Haberman Decl., Ex. 74 [attaching page 473 instead of pages 476 and 477], Ex. 76 [attaching page 141 instead of pages 371 and 372], Ex. 77 [attaching pages 437 and 438 instead of pages 481 and 482].) The exception is Hayt’s deposition testimony. His excerpt states that he bought JLI products in California in either 2019 or 2020 and that he may be able to get information from his bank that shows the purchases. (See Haberman Decl., Ex. 75, p. 393.) However, Plaintiffs fail to cite the specific date and location of the purchase, so the Court cannot tell whether the purchase relates to Altria’s California contacts. (See Reply, p. 12; see also Kouba Reply Decl., Ex. T, pp. 5185785795-5185785796 [attaching amendment to services contract between JLI and Altria, which indicates that the contractual relationship existed between December 20, 2018 through March 31, 2020]; Jayone Foods, Inc. v. Aekyung Industrial Co. Ltd. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5^th 543, 562-563 [reversing grant of motion to quash because “Plaintiffs [] presented evidence showing that a nonresident defendant contracted with a California distributor to ship its product to California, and the California distributor in turn sold the product to a California store, where Plaintiffs’ mother, a California resident, repeatedly purchased the product”].) The same is true of Samike’s, Challburg’s, and Siravo’s excerpts. Samike testified that, on one occasion, he bought JLI products from an unidentified gas station in Long Beach, California. (See Kouba Reply Decl., Ex. KK, p. 481.)[2] Challburg “assume[d]” that he bought and used JLI products while on spring break in California in 2018. (See id. at Ex. JJ, p. 370.) Siravo said he used JLI products in California during a trip sometime “between 2020 and 2021, 2022[.]” (Id. at Ex. II, p. 480.) These statements seem too vague to demonstrate the requisite connection to Altria’s forum contacts and to satisfy Plaintiffs’ burden.

The Court finds that the hearing should be continued to give Plaintiffs a chance to supplement the record.[3] [4]

[1] Earlier in the litigation, Altria brought a motion to quash against 10 exemplar claimants who reside out of state. The Court granted that motion on July 29, 2022 and denied reconsideration on October 18, 2022. (See, e.g., Motion, pp. 5-6 [summarizing procedural history].)

[2] Altria claims the purchase took place in 2019. (See Reply, p. 11.)

[3] As a matter of guidance, I tend to disagree with Altria’s argument regarding addiction and injury dates. In theory, even if an addiction or injury first arises out of state, a subsequent related contact in California could contribute to the addiction or injury or could cause a new injury.

[4] “The Altria Defendants’ burden to show that it would be unreasonable to exercise jurisdiction does not apply unless and until Plaintiffs satisfy the ‘relatedness’ prong.” (7/29/22 Statement of Decision, p. 19.)

Here, Altria moves to seal certain exhibits filed in connection with the opposition to Altria’s motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:

(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;

(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).) “These findings embody constitutional requirements for a request to seal court records, protecting the First Amendment right of public access[.]” (Edmon & Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group June 2023 Update) ¶ 9:418, emphasis in original.)[1]

Altria moves to seal two groups of documents. The first group consists of Plaintiffs’ fact sheets (exhibits D, F, H, J, L, N, P, and R to the declaration of David Kouba).[2] The second group consists of Plaintiffs’ declarations (exhibits E, G, I, K, M, O, Q, S, and T).

The motion is denied without prejudice. Altria seeks a blanket sealing order. The standard rule in California, however, is that “[o]nly the specific words of documents that constitute the sensitive material should be sealed[.]” (Edmon & Karnow, supra, at ¶ 9:418.5.) “[G]enerally, it is not permissible to seal the entire document.” (Ibid.)

Altria is free to refile to seal specific confidential information – e.g., Social Security numbers, medical data, drug histories, and addresses.

[1] The parties’ agreement to seal documents is not enough to support a motion to seal. (Id. at ¶ 9:417.1 [“Parties sometimes operate under an informal arrangement pursuant to which documents are ‘deemed filed under seal’ unless an objection is made. Such an arrangement ‘is entirely inconsistent with the mandatory requirements of rules 2.550 and 2.551 and the constitutional values informing those requirements.’”].)

[2] “Plaintiffs” are Blake Arruda, et al.

Here, Altria moves to seal certain exhibits filed in connection with the reply to Altria’s motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:

(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;

(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;

Altria moves to seal three groups of documents. The first group consists of pages in Altria’s reply to the motion to quash (pages 6:12-14, 6:18-28, 10:14-28, and 11:1-15). The second group consists of excerpts from the depositions of other Defendants’ executives, representatives, and/or employees (exhibits Z, AA, BB, CC, DD, and EE to the reply declaration of David Kouba). The third group consists of excerpts from the depositions of Plaintiffs Joseph Siravo and Benjamin Hayt (exhibits II and LL).

The motion is denied as to the reply pages. Pages 6:12-14, 6:18-28, 10:14-28, and 11:1-15 mostly contain legal arguments. The information does not appear to be private, sensitive, and/or confidential.

The remainder of the motion is denied without prejudice. Altria seeks a blanket sealing order. The standard rule in California, however, is that “[o]nly the specific words of documents that constitute the sensitive material should be sealed[.]” (Edmon & Karnow, supra, at ¶ 9:418.5.) “[G]enerally, it is not permissible to seal the entire document.” (Ibid.)

Altria is free to refile to seal specific words, sentences, paragraphs, and pages that disclose private, sensitive, and/or confidential information.

Altria’s motion to seal no. 3 is granted, except the motion is denied without prejudice as to exhibits 11, 26, 33, 35, and 42.

Here, Altria moves to seal certain exhibits filed in connection with the opposition to Altria’s motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:

(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;

(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;

Altria moves to seal two groups of documents. The first group consists of pages in Plaintiffs’ opposition brief (pages 4:12-13, 5:6-9, 5:19-23, 6:5-6, 6:10-21, 6:23-28, 7:2-3, 7:8-12, 7:19-21, 8:24-26, 8:28, 9:1-6, 9:21-23, 10:1-5, 10:18-28, 11:1-28, 12-1:28, 13:1-18, 13:21-28, 14, 15, 16:4-5).[2] The second group consists of exhibits (exhibits 11, 16, 20, 22-26, 28, 31, 33, 35, 42, 47-48, 51, 54-69, 71-73).

The motion is granted as to the first group. The statements on these pages come from documents that have been marked “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” under the protective order. The statements reveal strategies, negotiations, and other sensitive business information. At this stage of the litigation, there is an overriding interest in keeping this information confidential. The overriding interest supports sealing the pages. There is a substantial probability that the overriding interest will be harmed absent sealing. The sealing is narrowly tailored. And there is no less restrictive means to protect the overriding interest.

With a few exceptions, the motion is also granted as to the second group. Many of the exhibits constitute internal business documents that, like the opposition pages, reveal strategies, negotiations, and other sensitive business information. The Court finds the rule 2.550(d) requirements satisfied.

The exceptions are exhibits 11, 26, 33, 35, and 42, which are emails. While some confidential information may be included, a significant amount appears to be nonconfidential. A blanket sealing order is inappropriate, so this portion of the motion is denied without prejudice.

Altria is free to refile to seal specific confidential information contained in exhibits 11, 26, 33, 35, and 42.

[2] “Plaintiffs” are Blake Arruda, et al.
************************************************************************************************

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

COORDINATION PROCEEDING SPECIAL TITLE [RULE 3.550]

JUUL LABS PRODUCT CASES THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

This Document Relates to BLAKE ARRUDA, FRANK DEDMON, DOMINICK ZIMMERMAN, TARIQ HASSAN, MAXIMILLIAN SAMIKE, BENJAMIN HAYT, GARRETT CHALLBURG, and JOSEPH SIRAVO.

JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION PROCEEDING NO. 5052

Connor Batham v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et. al., Case No. 19STCV22935 (Lead)

Coordination Trial Judge

The Honorable David S. Cunningham III,

Dept. 11

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

The Court, having reviewed the moving papers, opposition, and reply, and considered the arguments presented, issues the following Order consistent with its Tentative Ruling.

I. BACKGROUND

This case concerns e-cigarettes manufactured by JUUL Labs, Inc. (“JLI”). The Altria Defendants (Altria Group, Inc., Philip Morris USA Inc., Altria Client Services LLC, Altria Group Distribution Company, and Altria Enterprises LLC) have moved to quash service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction over the claims of eight specific Plaintiffs: Blake Arruda, Dominick Zimmerman, Frank Dedmon, Tariq Hassan, Maximillian Samike, Joseph Siravo, Benjamin Hayt, and Garrett Challburg. These Plaintiffs are collectively referred to as the "Non-California Opt-Out Plaintiffs".

The Altria Defendants are not California corporations and are not subject to general jurisdiction in California. (Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014).) General jurisdiction typically exists where a corporation has its formal place of incorporation or principal place of business, which for the Altria Defendants is Virginia. (Id.) The Court has previously found that only specific jurisdiction is at issue here.

To establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to demonstrate general or specific jurisdiction. (Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017).) When jurisdiction is challenged, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to establish a basis for jurisdiction, supporting jurisdictional allegations with affidavits and other authenticated documents. (See In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4^th 100, 110.)

The Altria Defendants previously moved to quash service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction with respect to ten out-of-state exemplar plaintiffs in this JCCP. On July 29, 2022, the Court issued a Statement of Decision granting that motion, finding the exemplar plaintiffs failed to show specific personal jurisdiction over the Altria Defendants. The Court explained that its ruling applied only to the exemplar plaintiffs. However, the Altria Defendants contend that the same legal principles and largely the same factual record apply to the Non-California Opt-Out Plaintiffs.

Specific jurisdiction requires that a plaintiff’s claims “arise[] out of or relate[] to the defendant’s contacts with the forum”. (Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2015) (quotations omitted); Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 87 F.4th 404, 411 (9th Cir. 2023) (similar). This requirement is “more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation”—it is based on due process. Bristol-Myers, 137 S. Ct. at 1780 (citation and quotations omitted); see also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985) (“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.’”) (citation and quotation omitted).

II. DISCUSSION

The Altria Defendants argue that the Non-California Opt-Out Plaintiffs cannot establish specific personal jurisdiction because their claims do not arise out of or relate to Altria's contacts with California. Altria relies heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) ("BMS") and Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) ("Ford").

In BMS, the Supreme Court held that nonresident plaintiffs could not establish specific jurisdiction in California because they did not purchase, ingest, or suffer injury from the product in California. The Court noted that the connection between the nonresidents' claims and the forum was weak because they were not California residents and did not claim harm in California. BMS appears to form a general rule barring specific jurisdiction against an out-of-state defendant if the out-of-state plaintiff buys, uses, and is harmed by the product outside the forum.

In Ford, the Court ruled that specific jurisdiction could be based on the defendant’s forum-directed actions even if those actions did not directly cause the specific injuries, but emphasized that the plaintiffs were residents of the forum states, used the products there, and suffered injuries there. The Ford court distinguished a scenario like the present one, noting that a California court would likely not have specific jurisdiction over a claim against Ford brought by an Ohio plaintiff based on an accident and car purchased in Ohio. Ford is congruent with BMS in this regard.

The California Court of Appeal decision in Daimler Trucks North America, LLC v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 571 U.S. 117 (2014).) (Daimler Trucks) is also relevant. This Court previously noted that Daimler Trucks applied the principles of Ford and BMS. In Daimler Trucks, the court found jurisdiction present where the plaintiffs were California residents, the product was marketed and purchased in California, and the plaintiff drove the truck and sought damages for injuries treated in California, despite the accident occurring out of state. These were considered important distinctions from BMS.

The Altria Defendants' relationship with JLI, a California corporation at the time, is a central focus of Plaintiffs' argument for jurisdiction. However, Altria contends that these contacts, such as investment activities, due diligence, negotiations, and service agreements, are unrelated to Plaintiffs' tort claims and cannot serve as a basis for specific jurisdiction, citing cases like Rivelli v. Hemm, 67 Cal. App. 5th 380 (2021). Altria also argues that any services provided to JLI under the December 20, 2018 Services Agreement, such as retail distribution and shelf-space services, regulatory services related to JLI's PMTA, and marketing assistance, would, for out-of-state plaintiffs, relate to services directed at the plaintiffs' home jurisdictions, not California.

Plaintiffs counter that Altria actively directed and controlled JLI and that specific jurisdiction is appropriate because the underlying controversy arises out of or relates to Altria's contacts with JLI within California. Plaintiffs allege a "symbiotic relationship" where Altria sought to influence and control JLI before and after its investment. They cite meetings and communications in California, Altria's goal to direct JLI's activities, assistance with distribution, regulatory engagement, and brand building, seeking "significant ownership and influence" and "Altria approval" for JLI's plans, assisting with regulatory matters, including efforts related to mint flavoring, providing distribution and retail services, providing research and testing services, and direct marketing efforts. Plaintiffs argue that a significant amount of the liability producing conduct occurred in California through Altria's joint participation with California-based JLI. Plaintiffs also raise a theory of conspiracy jurisdiction.

This Court has previously considered and rejected many of the arguments and evidence presented by Plaintiffs. Specifically, the Court found Altria's investment activities and due diligence insufficient to establish jurisdiction, Altria's retail and distribution services did not support jurisdiction over claims by out-of-state plaintiffs, PMTA services were primarily based in Virginia and Washington, D.C., and marketing evidence did not show Altria's control or that plaintiffs saw the advertisements. The Court also previously rejected the notion of derivative liability, joint venture, or partnership absent sufficient evidence of control. Plaintiffs' current submissions, even the additional exhibits, largely reiterate evidence and arguments previously considered and found insufficient.

The Court also declines to follow the MDL court's April 29, 2022 summary judgment order as binding precedent, noting it is nonbinding, predates this Court's prior rulings, is brief, may have involved a different record, and applied a summary judgment standard requiring inferences in favor of the plaintiff, which is different from the motion to quash standard.

III. RULING

A. Granting Motion to Quash as to Plaintiffs Arruda, Dedmon, Zimmerman, and Hassan:

Plaintiffs Blake Arruda, Frank Dedmon, Dominick Zimmerman, and Tariq Hassan do not reside in California and do not claim to have suffered injuries or damages in California. Based on their allegations and disclosures, there is little to nothing that would connect these four Plaintiffs and their JUUL-related claims against Altria to California. Four of the Non-California Opt-Out Plaintiffs do not allege any California connection at all, not claiming to have ever bought or used JUUL in California. These Plaintiffs are non-residents bringing claims based on transactions, acts, omissions, injuries, and damages that occurred entirely out-of-state. Mr. Arruda, for example, is a Connecticut resident who began using JUUL and claims injury in 2016 while residing in Rhode Island and Connecticut, and he claims purchases in Connecticut and Rhode Island, not California. The Altria Defendants contend that for these four Plaintiffs who have never been to California, personal jurisdiction is plainly lacking. Their claims would arise out of and relate to conduct in the state where they lived, purchased, were injured, and incurred damages.

As in BMS, these four Plaintiffs did not purchase JUUL in California, did not ingest JUUL products in California, and were not injured by JUUL in California. This Court previously concluded that ten out-of-state exemplar plaintiffs with similar allegations and claims could not establish specific jurisdiction over the Altria Defendants, agreeing that BMS and Ford support a general rule barring specific jurisdiction in such circumstances. This conclusion applies with equal force to Plaintiffs Arruda, Dedmon, Zimmerman, and Hassan. Their claims against Altria do not arise out of or relate to Altria’s California contacts. While Altria had contacts with California, such as through communications, negotiations, and investment in JLI, these Plaintiffs' tort claims do not arise out of or relate to those activities. Even if services were provided by Altria related to JUUL, for these Plaintiffs, those services would relate to services directed at their home jurisdictions, not California.

Therefore, the motion to quash service of process should be granted as to Plaintiffs Blake Arruda, Frank Dedmon, Dominick Zimmerman, and Tariq Hassan.

B. Continuing Hearing as to Plaintiffs Samike, Hayt, Challburg, and Siravo:

For the other four Non-California Opt-Out Plaintiffs—Maximillian Samike, Benjamin Hayt, Garrett Challburg, and Joseph Siravo—the situation differs slightly. Like the others, they reside outside of California and do not claim to have ever lived in the State, nor do they claim purchases, marketing exposure, injury, or damages in California. However, they claim to have used or purchased JUUL in California on some isolated occasions. Plaintiffs argue that these claims distinguish them from the exemplar plaintiffs and the other opt-out plaintiffs, clearing the threshold for specific jurisdiction under this Court's prior ruling and BMS.

The Altria Defendants acknowledge these claims but argue they are generic, vague, and inconsistent with other statements made by these Plaintiffs in their Plaintiff Fact Sheets and complaints. For example, some Plaintiffs did not identify California purchases in their fact sheets or complaints. Altria contends that even isolated use or purchase in California, without more details connecting it to Altria's California contacts, is insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction, particularly since Plaintiffs do not allege they first used, became addicted, resided, or incurred damages in California, and Altria's services to JLI were limited in scope and duration.

The Court has reviewed the deposition testimony cited by Plaintiffs regarding their California use or purchase. While the testimony and declarations broadly identify purchases and/or uses in California, they often lack specific details about when, where, and why the purchase or use occurred. Without specific dates and locations, it is difficult to conclude that the purchase or use relates to any action Altria took in or directed at California. For example, Mr. Siravo testified to using a vapor product in California after summer 2020, possibly JUUL, but Altria was no longer providing services by then, and his alleged injury occurred prior to 2020. Mr. Samike mentions a purchase at an unidentified gas station in Long Beach, California. Mr. Challburg "assume[s]" he used/bought JUUL in California in 2018. Mr. Siravo used JUUL in California between 2020 and 2022.

The Court finds that the statements regarding California purchases and/or uses by Plaintiffs Samike, Hayt, Challburg, and Siravo are currently too vague to definitively demonstrate the requisite connection to Altria’s forum contacts and meet Plaintiffs’ burden at this stage. However, rather than denying the motion outright as to these Plaintiffs, the Court finds it appropriate to allow for further clarification of the factual record. The Court tends to disagree with Altria's argument that an addiction or injury arising out-of-state necessarily precludes jurisdiction if subsequent related contacts in California contributed to the injury.

Therefore, the hearing should be continued as to Plaintiffs Maximillian Samike, Benjamin Hayt, Garrett Challburg, and Joseph Siravo to allow Plaintiffs an opportunity to supplement the record with more specific details regarding their alleged purchases and/or uses of JUUL products in California and to allow Altria to conduct jurisdictional discovery if necessary.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Altria Group, Inc.'s, et al., motion to quash service of process is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs Blake Arruda, Frank Dedmon, Dominick Zimmerman, and Tariq Hassan for lack of personal jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on Altria Group, Inc.'s, et al., motion to quash service of process is CONTINUED as to Plaintiffs Maximillian Samike, Benjamin Hayt, Garrett Challburg, and Joseph Siravo. The Court will set a new hearing date and potentially a schedule for supplemental briefing or jurisdictional discovery regarding the specific details of these Plaintiffs' alleged JUUL purchases and/or uses in California and their connection to Altria's California contacts.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ______________________________________________ THE HONORABLE DAVID S. CUNNINGHAM III