Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 23STCV24731, Date: 2024-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

MOVING PARTY: Specially Appearing Defendant James Hardie Building Products, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff April Dickson, individually and as successor-in-interest for Danny L. Dickson

This is a wrongful death action arising from alleged exposure to silica. Decedent Danny Dickson worked in the construction industry. In that time, Mr. Dickson worked with a product called Hardie board in the State of Alabama. Defendant James Hardie Building Products (“JHBP”) manufactured the Hardie board in Los Angeles County. Around September 2022, Mr. Dickson was diagnosed with silicosis and died from this disease a month later. Mr. Dickson is survived by his spouse, Plaintiff April Dickson.

Plaintiff April Dickson (hereafter, “Plaintiff”) commenced this action on October 10, 2023 and filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) on March 15, 2024. As alleged, JHBP is incorporated in the state of Delaware and has its principal place of business in Illinois.

On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service of Summons which states that JHBP was served with the summons and FAC on March 19, 2024 by personal service.

On April 17, 2024, JHBP filed the Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.

A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. (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 that 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 continuance and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.” (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 127.) “A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) if 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. (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269 (cleaned up).) 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. 351, 362.) The “arise out” of standard “asks about causation,” but “relate to” does not. (Ibid.) “When a corporation has continuously and deliberately exploited a State’s market, it must reasonably anticipate being haled into that State’s courts to defend actions based on products causing injury there.” (Id. at p. 364 (cleaned up).)

JBHP asserts five objections to paragraphs 3, 4, 8, 13, and 14 of the Declaration of Amy Carter and to Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 attached thereto. The objections to paragraphs 3, 4, 8, and exhibits 1, 2 and 3 are SUSTAINED for lack of foundation. The objections to paragraphs 13 and 14 are OVERRULED.

JHBP argues it should be dismissed from this action because this court does not have personal jurisdiction over JHBP. In opposition, Plaintiff focuses solely on the issue of specific jurisdiction and therefore concedes this court does not have general jurisdiction over JHBP. As such, the sole issue to be decided is whether this court has specific jurisdiction.

The three elements for the exercise of specific jurisdiction are: (1) purposeful availment, (2) whether the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum, and (3) whether exercising personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice. (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269 (cleaned up).) 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.)

Here, Plaintiff argues in conclusory fashion that the court has specific jurisdiction because JHBP conducted the research and development of its silica-containing products, including the Hardie board which Mr. Dickson was exposed to, in the State of California. Plaintiff’s arguments the elements of specific jurisdiction are undeveloped. Moreover, the court has sustained JHBP’s objections to Plaintiff’s evidence. Thus, Plaintiff has not provided any evidentiary support to establish JHBP’s availment of California’s benefits, or whether this controversy is related to or arises out of JHBP’s contacts in this forum.

Alternatively, Plaintiff requests a continuance of this motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery. “A trial court has the 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.) “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 Auto. Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 127.)

Plaintiff contends jurisdictional discovery is warranted and necessary to show JHBP had extensive contacts with California and that Plaintiff’s harm arose from or was related to those contacts. Such discovery would include, but not be limited to, the following subjects:

1. James Hardies’s research, development and design of products in its California-based facilities that were distributed across the United States, including those products distributed to the Decedent;

2. James Hardie’s purchases of materials from California to manufacture its products;

5. Contracts, agreements, transactions, and/or joint ventures between James Hardie and California-based companies;

7. California state and/or federal lawsuits in which James Hardie filed suit as the plaintiff or filed a cross-complaint.

Based on the foregoing, the court agrees with Plaintiff that a continuance is appropriate to allow Plaintiff to conduct jurisdictional discovery.

The Hearing for Specially Appearing Defendant James Hardie Building Products’ Motion To Quash is CONTINUED to November 22, 2024, to allow Plaintiff to conduct jurisdictional discovery.

The court sets a Status Conference re: Jurisdictional Discovery for October 21, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court