Judge Laura A. Seigle, Case 21STCV16240 2023-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 21STCV16240, Date: 2023-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16240 Hearing Date: January 11, 2023 Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS TO QUASH

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs James Manns, individually and as successor-in-interest to Debra Manns, David Papworth, Carie Edwards, Shauna Papworth, Jami Hoffman, and Robee Green filed this action alleging Debra Manns (“Decedent”) developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos.

On November 4, 2022, Plaintiffs dismissed Defendant Master Industries Worldwide, LLC. On the same day, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to substitute Master Industries Worldwide, LLC as successor-in-interest to Master Industries, Inc., and Storm Products, Inc. for DOE 13 and DOE 12, respectively. Defendants Master Industries Worldwide, LLC and Storm Products, Inc. (“Defendants”) filed motions to quash service of summons on them for lack of personal jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

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 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.)

A. Master Industries Worldwide, LLC

,Defendant Master Industries Worldwide, LLC argues there is no personal jurisdiction over because it was formed in 2011 and did not manufacture or sell products until 2012, many years after Decedent’s exposure. (Symes Decl., ¶ 12.) Defendant is not continuing the business of Master Industries, Inc.. In 2011, it purchased certain assets of Master Industries, Inc. for valuable consideration. (Symes Decl., ¶ 10; Motion at p. 9; Reply at p. 5.) Defendant also argues that it is not a successor-in-interest to Defendant Storm Products because Storm Products is the sole member and manager of Defendant Master Industries Worldwide. (Motion at p. 9.)

Plaintiffs do not contest that there is no general jurisdiction over Defendant. Plaintiffs argue Defendant is a successor-in-interest to Master Industries, Inc., which manufactured, sold, and distributed Easy Slide talc products that exposed Decedent to asbestos in California. (Opposition at pp. 3, 5.) Plaintiffs submitted evidence that Master Industries Worldwide, LLC claimed to have been in business for fifty years manufacturing products in California. (Opposition at p. 2; Eyerly Decl., Ex. 3.) Plaintiffs also submitted evidence that Master Industries Worldwide, LLC posted a photo of its shipping facility online in 2009, to rebut Defendant’s argument that it was formed in 2011. (Everly Decl., Ex. 4.)

Plaintiffs also state Master Industries Worldwide, LLC has not produced the purchase agreement whereby it purchased assets of Master Industries, Inc.. Plaintiffs state they need discovery on the relationship between Master Industries Worldwide, LLC and Master Industries, Inc. and Master Industries Worldwide, LLC’s contacts with California. (Opposition at p. 6.)

Plaintiffs are correct that they do not need to accept Defendant’s assertion that it assumed no liability, especially because Master Industries Worldwide, LLC has not produced the deal documents. Master Industries Worldwide, LLC bases its arguments on a declaration stating in somewhat conclusory fashion that it is not a successor-in-interest to Master Industries, Inc. and has no contacts with California. (Symes Decl., ¶¶ 9, 13-16.) Plaintiffs have the right to take discovery on the issue of successor liability and Master Industries Worldwide, LLC’s contacts with California with respect to the talc product at issue.

The motion is continued to March 10, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. for Plaintiffs to take discovery on the issue of Master Industries Worldwide, LLC’s successor liability and contacts with California with respect to the talc product at issue.

B. Storm Products, Inc.

Defendant Storm Products, Inc. argues there is no personal jurisdiction over it individually or as a successor-in-interest to Master Industries, Inc. because it has never manufactured, supplied, sold, marketed, or distributed any talc-containing products in California or elsewhere. (Symes Decl., ¶ 17.) Storm Products is the sole member and manager of Master Industries Worldwide, LLC. (Symes Decl., ¶ 5.)

Plaintiffs do not contest that there is no general jurisdiction over Storm Products. Plaintiffs appear to be arguing that this court has jurisdiction over Storm Products because it is the sole member of Master Industries Worldwide, LLC. (Opposition at p. 3.) Plaintiffs do not contend that Storm Products purchased the assets of Master Industries, Inc. or that Storm Products ever produced or sold talc products. All of Plaintiffs’ evidence concerns Master Industries Worldwide, LLC as the successor to Master Industries, Inc. Plaintiffs present no theory by which Storm Products could be the successor to Master Industries, Inc.

Storm Products, Inc.’ motion is GRANTED and the complaint against Storm Products, Inc. is DISMISSSED without prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (h).

Master Industries Worldwide, LLC’s motion is CONTINUED to March 10, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiffs may file a supplemental opposition by February 28, 2023, and Defendant may file a supplemental reply by March 6, 2023.

The moving parties are ordered to give notice.