Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2023-00007431-CU-PL-CTL, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 09, 2023

08/11/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Product Liability Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00007431-CU-PL-CTL PROCOPIO GIMENEZ VS GUNNAR OPTIKS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Quash Service of Summons, 06/13/2023

The Motion (ROA # 14) of Defendant Gunnar Optiks LLC ('Defendant') for an order quashing service of the Complaint by Plaintiff GASTON EZEQUIEL PROCOPIO GIMENEZ ('Plaintiff'), is DENIED.

Defendant Gunnar Optiks admits that it is a limited liability company organized in California, and that it is physically located within California. Declaration of Brian D. Chase at 'Exhibit 3.' As a resident of this state, Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of this state.

The concepts of general or specific jurisdiction and the application of the 'minimum contacts' test are only applicable to the exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. See Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 262 and Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434.

Stated differently, a company that is organized, headquartered and operated in California always has contacts with this state sufficient to support jurisdiction.

'For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual's domicile; for a corporation, it is an equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at home ....

A court with general jurisdiction may hear any claim against that defendant, even if all the incidents underlying the claim occurred in a different State.' Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (2017) 582 U. S. 255, 262 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

The moving brief cites and relies on Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, supra. However, this opinion addressed a situation in which Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb was a non-resident of California: it was incorporated in Delaware, headquartered in New York and maintained 'substantial operations' in both New York and New Jersey. Id. at 258.

The reply brief also cites and relies on Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U. S. 117. However, Daimler involved an action by Argentinian residents filed in California against a German corporation. Both off these cases are not relevant. As discussed above, Defendant Gunnar Optiks is a resident of California and conducts its business operations in California.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2982523