Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 20STCV12435, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV12435    Hearing Date: January 5, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS TO QUASH

            Plaintiffs Tad Inferrera and Mary Inferrera filed this action alleging mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos in products from various defendants, including Vari-Lite LLC and Signify North America Corporation who then filed motions to quash service of summons. 

A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over the defendant.  (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.”  (Saimler 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) 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1026.)  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 defendant actions ‘based on’ products causing injury there.”  (Id. at p. 1027.) 

I.          Vari-Lite, LLC

On November 30, 2022, Defendant Vari-Lite, LLC filed a motion to quash service of summons on the ground that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over it individually or as successor-in-interest to Strand Lighting, LLC.

Defendant provided evidence that it is incorporated in Texas and has its principal place of business in Texas.  (Smith Decl., ¶ 6.)  This evidence establishes California has no general jurisdiction over Defendant, and Plaintiffs do not argue otherwise.

Defendant argues it is not the successor-in-interest to Strand Lighting because Strand Lighting is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GTG LLC and a sister corporation to Defendant.  (Motion at p. 3.)  Defendant did not agree to assume Strand Lighting’s liabilities, Strand Lighting’s business is being terminated by way of a bankruptcy, there will be no transfer of assets to Defendant, and Defendant is not a continuation of Strand Lighting.  (Id. at pp. 8-9.) 

Plaintiffs contend they need discovery on the relationship between Strand Lighting and Defendant.  (Opposition at p. 4.)

Plaintiffs are correct that they do not need to take Defendant’s assertion that it assumed no liability at face value.  Defendant bases its argument on a declaration stating in somewhat conclusory fashion that Strand Lighting and Defendant have completely separate businesses.  (See, e.g., Smith Decl., ¶¶ 8, 9, 11.)  Plaintiffs have the right to take discovery on the issue of successor liability.

The motion is continued to April 6, 2023 at 9 a.m. for Plaintiffs to take discovery on the issue of Defendant’s successor liability.  Plaintiffs and Defendant may file supplemental opposition and reply briefs based on regular notice.

II.        Signify North America Corporation

On November 30, 2022, Defendant Signify North America Corporation filed a motion to quash service of summons on the ground that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over it individually or as successor-in-interest to Strand Lighting, LLC.

Defendant provided evidence that it is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in New Jersey.  (Smith Decl., ¶ 7.)  This evidence establishes California has no general jurisdiction over Defendant, and Plaintiffs do not argue otherwise.

Defendant argues it is not the successor-in-interest to Strand Lighting because Strand Lighting is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant, Defendant did not agree to assume Strand Lighting’s liabilities, Strand Lighting’s business is being terminated by way of a bankruptcy, there will be no transfer of assets to Defendant, and Defendant is not a continuation of Strand Lighting.  (Motion at p. 8.) 

Plaintiffs contend they need discovery on the relationship between Strand Lighting and Defendant.  (Opposition at p. 4.)

Plaintiffs are correct that they do not need to take Defendant’s assertion that it assumed no liability at face value.  Defendant bases its argument on a declaration stating in somewhat conclusory fashion that Strand Lighting and Defendant have completely separate businesses.  (See, e.g., Smith Decl., ¶¶ 9, 10, 14.)  Plaintiffs have the right to take discovery on the issue of successor liability.

The motion is continued to April 6, 2023 at 9 a.m. for Plaintiffs to take discovery on the issue of Defendant’s successor liability.  Plaintiffs and Defendant may file supplemental opposition and reply briefs based on regular notice.

            The moving parties are to give notice.