Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 19STCV26578, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV26578 Hearing Date: August 12, 2022 Dept: B
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Friday, August 12, 2022
Department B Calendar No. 12
PROCEEDINGS
Ty Nguyen, et al. v. Akiyama International Company Limited, et al.
19STCV26578
Akiyama Machinery Co., Ltd.’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint
Ikegai Corporation’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons on Third Amended Complaint
TENTATIVE RULING
Akiyama Machinery Co., Ltd.’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is granted.
Ikegai Corporation’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons on Third Amended Complaint is granted.
Background
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on July 29, 2019. The operative Third Amended Complaint was filed on February 24, 2021. Plaintiffs allege the following facts. Plaintiff Ty Nguyen was working for Nationwide Plastic Products, Inc. when he was injured because of his arm becoming caught in the rollers of an Akiyama International, Hi-Ace Printing Press. Plaintiff Ty Nguyen’s arm was amputated due to the alleged defect of this product and due to this alleged dangerous condition on property. Plaintiff Trang Nguyen alleges Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”) and Loss of Consortium. Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: 1. Strict Products Liability (Manufacturing Defect); 2. Strict Products Liability (Design Defect); 3. Products Liability (Negligence); 4. Negligence; 5. NIED; 6. Loss of Consortium; 7. Premises Liability.
As to Defendant Akiyama, the Court notes that this motion has been continued twice previously to allow Plaintiffs to conduct jurisdictional discovery, first from December 7, 2021, to April 28, 2022, and then from April 28, 2022, to this date. Plaintiffs submitted no additional evidence or a supplemental opposition since the last scheduled hearing date.
As to Defendant Ikegai, the Court notes that Plaintiffs filed a late opposition to the motion which had been originally set for hearing on August 9, 2022. Thus, the Court continued the motion for a short period of time to the current date to allow Defendant to file a Reply to the late opposition.
Motions to Quash
Defendant Akiyama Machinery, Ltd. (“Akiyama”) moves for an order quashing service of the summons and complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures section 418.10(a)(1). Defendant asserts that it is a Japanese corporation and lacks minimum contacts with California for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction.
Defendant Ikegai Corporation (“Ikegai”) moves for an order quashing Plaintiffs’ service of the summons and Third Amended Complaint and dismissing the Third Amended Complaint against moving party pursuant to CCP § 418.10(a)(1). The motion is made on the grounds that this Court does not have jurisdiction over Ikegai because there are insufficient contacts between Ikegai and California to support a basis for jurisdiction over Ikegai in this action. Plaintiffs did not file a timely written opposition to Ikegai’s motion.
Plaintiffs have the burden to show that sufficient minimum contacts exist between Defendant and California to establish personal jurisdiction. See, Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710; See, also, Edmunds v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 221, 230-31. Plaintiffs must meet this burden by a preponderance of the evidence. See, Ziller Elec. Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232. Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden.
General Jurisdiction
A non-resident defendant may be subject to the forum state’s general jurisdiction if the defendant’s contacts are substantial, continuous, and systematic. See, Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445. Plaintiffs must provide competent evidence to establish that Defendant’s connections with California are sufficiently continuous and systematic to impose general jurisdiction. See, Int’l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 317 (1945).
Here, Plaintiffs have not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Court may exercise general jurisdiction over Defendants. Defendants’ connections with California are not sufficiently continuous and systematic to impose general jurisdiction. See, Int’l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 317 (1945).
As to Defendant Akiyama, Defendant submitted evidence that its contacts with California are minimal with only occasional sales to a distributer in La Mirada, California, and that its connections with California are not continuous and systematic. (Decl., Takao Mori, ¶¶ 2-3.) In opposition, Plaintiffs merely argue that Akiyama may be a successor to predecessor entities. However, Plaintiffs submit no evidence that Akiyama had continuous and systematic connections with California. Additionally, as noted above, Plaintiffs submitted no additional evidence since the last hearing date in which Plaintiffs were allowed to conduct jurisdictional discovery.
As to Defendant Ikegai, it also presented evidence that it does not have continuous and systematic connections with California. (Decl., Osamu Minakawa, ¶¶ 4-15.) As noted above, Plaintiffs did not file a timely written opposition to Ikegai’s motion. With the late opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Ikegai is a successor company based on consolidation and merger with previous Akiyama entities. However, Plaintiffs submit no evidence that Ikegai had continuous and systematic connections with California.
Because Plaintiffs’ theory of jurisdiction against both Defendants rely on successor liability, that discussion will be analyzed in more detail below under specific jurisdiction.
Specific Jurisdiction
“When determining whether specific jurisdiction exists, courts consider the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant's contacts with the forum; and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.” Snowney v. Harrah’s Ent., Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Plaintiffs have also not met their burden to establish the exercise of specific jurisdiction over Defendants. Plaintiffs have not set forth facts that demonstrate that Defendants purposefully availed itself of the forum benefits. Finally, Plaintiffs have not provided facts to show that the exercise of jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.
As to Akiyama, Plaintiffs merely provide conclusions rather than evidence that Defendant purposefully availed itself of forum benefits, that the controversy arises out of Defendant’s contacts with the forum, and that fair play and justice would be fostered if jurisdiction is asserted. Again, Plaintiffs’ theory of jurisdiction appears to be that Akiyama is a successor of prior entities.
“Successor liability is a well settled concept in the area of personal jurisdiction determinations. In a case raising liability issues, a California court will have personal jurisdiction over a successor company if (1) the court would have had personal jurisdiction over the predecessor, and (2) the successor company effectively assumed the subject liabilities of the predecessor.” CenterPoint Energy, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1120. Plaintiffs submitted no competent evidence to meet any of the elements of successor liability as to Akiyama. The evidence submitted with the opposition, which simply consists of the OSHA report, a print-out of a website purportedly explaining the history of the Akiyama brand, and the declaration of Osamu Minakawa, a director of Defendant Ikegai Corporation, does not establish the elements of successor liability. Plaintiffs submitted no evidence that Defendant specifically assumed any liabilities from any Akiyama entities, including the predecessor that designed, manufactured, sold, and distributed the machine that caused Plaintiff’s injuries. In fact, Defendant’s discovery responses confirmed Defendant’s denial of any assumption of liabilities. The Court notes that Plaintiffs have been provided two continuances to conduct jurisdictional discovery with respect to Akiyama’s motion and filed no supplemental opposition or supporting evidence since the last scheduled hearing date.
As to Ikegai, as noted above, Plaintiffs did not file a timely written opposition to the motion. Finally, on August 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a late written opposition to the motion. Similar to the opposition to Akiyama’s motion, Plaintiffs attempt to rely on successor liability. Plaintiffs rely on the following evidence: 1. A print out of the website - www.akiyama-sc.co.jp; 2. A periodical article entitled “Chinese Companies Investing in Japan to Strengthen their Supply Chains: Technologies and markets are the main targets”; 3. Westlaw searches of Akiyama Machinery Manufacturing Corporation and Akiyama International Co., Ltd; 4. The declaration of Osamu Minakawa. None of the purported evidence establishes jurisdiction based on successor liability. Again, similar to the opposition to Akiyama’s motion, there is no evidence that Ikegai assumed the liabilities of any prior companies.
In addition, Plaintiffs merely conclude, rather than submitting competent evidence, that this Court would have had jurisdiction over the alleged original manufacturer - Akiyama Printing Machine. Plaintiffs simply state that jurisdiction exists because the printing press machine somehow ended up in California. “For a state to assert specific jurisdiction, the defendant must take some act by which [it] purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State. [Citation.] The contacts must be the defendant's own choice and not random, isolated, or fortuitous.” LG Chem, Ltd. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 348, 361 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Here, in the instant action, Plaintiffs submitted no evidence to show that Akiyama Printing Machine purposefully availed itself to the forum benefits.
Request for Jurisdictional Discovery
In order to meet its burden of proof Plaintiffs may be entitled to conduct discovery with regard to the issue of jurisdiction before the hearing on the motion to quash. See, Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 711. However, the request for continuance may be denied where Plaintiff offers no showing that discovery would likely present evidence to show general or specific jurisdiction. Beckman v. Thompson (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 481, 486-87. To obtain a continuance, Plaintiffs must “demonstrate that discovery is likely to lead to the production of evidence of facts establishing jurisdiction.”—specifically, Plaintiffs must “offer evidence tending to support the existence of personal jurisdiction over each named nonresident defendant.” In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 127. Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy this burden. Plaintiffs have already been provided two continuances of Akiyama’s motion. As to Ikegai, this motion was filed in November 2021 and Plaintiffs have had over eight months to obtain necessary evidence to oppose the motion. There is no showing that being provided additional time would likely lead to the production of such evidence.
Therefore, Defendants’ Motions to Quash Service of Summons and Third Amended Complaint are granted.
Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.