Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV15053, Date: 2022-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15053    Hearing Date: July 29, 2022    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH

            Defendant Scholl’s Wellness Company, LLC (“Defendant”) moves to quash service of the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 on the grounds that it did not sell an asbestos-containing product in California and did not assume the asbestos liabilities of Scholl, Inc.  Plaintiffs did not file an opposition.

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.”  (Saimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 127.)  Defendant provided evidence that it is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in New Jersey, and therefore is not a resident of California and not subject to its general jurisdiction.  (Carpenter Decl., Ex. B.)

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.)  In addition, the assertion of personal jurisdiction must “‘comport with “fair play and substantial justice.”’ [Citations.]”  (Id. at pp. 447-448.)  Defendant submitted evidence that it came into existence long after Defendant used Dr. Scholl’s foot power, and it did not assume asbestos liability of Bayer.  (Complaint, Ex. A; Carpenter Decl., Ex. D at ¶¶ 3, 4, 6.)  This evidence establishes that the controversy here is not related to and does not arise out of Defendant’s contacts with California.  Because Plaintiff did not oppose the motion, Plaintiff did not submit any evidence to the contrary. 

Therefore, the motion to quash is GRANTED.

The moving party is to give notice.