Judge Laura A. Seigle, Case 22STCV16173 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV16173, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16173 Hearing Date: August 4, 2022 Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS TO QUASH

On May 6, 2022, Plaintiffs Nancy Lawrence and Jackson Lawrence filed this action alleging John Lawrence died as a result of using Gold Bond talcum powder from the 1960s through 2000s. (Complaint, ¶ 9.) The complaint named Defendants Brenntag Specialties, Inc. and The Stephan Co., among others, as providers of asbestos-containing talcum powder. (Ibid.) On June 16, 2022, Defendant Brenntage Specialties, Inc. filed a motion to quash service of summons on the ground that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. On July 6, 2022, Defendant The Stephan Co. filed a motion to quash 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.” (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.) In addition, the assertion of personal jurisdiction must “‘comport with “fair play and substantial justice.”’ [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 447-448.)

A. Brenntag’s Motion

Defendant Brenntag Specialties, Inc. 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. (Oberdick Decl., ¶¶ 4-8.)

Defendant argues Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the requirement that the controversy relate to or arise out of its contacts with the forum because it never sold talc to the manufacturer of Gold Bond foot powder. (Owens Decl., ¶ 4.) Therefore, John Lawrence’s injuries from using Gold Bond foot powder cannot be related to Defendant’s contacts with or actions directed to California. (Motion at p. 4.)

While Plaintiffs have evidence that Defendant sold talc into California, they did not submit evidence showing that Defendant’s talc was used in Gold Bond foot powder. Plaintiffs state they need discovery from Defendant to show John Lawrence’s injuries related to or arose from being exposed to Defendant’s talcum powder. (Motion at p. 10.) At the hearing, the parties are to be prepared to discuss the scope of discovery on this question and a continued hearing date.

The motion is CONTINUED to allow jurisdictional discovery.

The moving party is to give notice.

B. The Stephan Co.’s Motion

Defendant the Stephan Co. presented evidence that it is incorporated in Florida with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania and therefore is not a resident of California and not subject to its general jurisdiction. (Large Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.)

Defendant argues Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the requirement that the controversy relate to or arise out of its contacts with the forum because Defendant has no business activities in California and Plaintiffs had no contact with any of Defendant’s products (Motion at p. 7.)

Plaintiffs point out that Defendant is a successor-in-interest to Old 97 company, which manufactured Gold Bond talcum powder. (Large Decl., ¶¶ 5-7.) Defendant manufactured certain Gold Bond products from 1990 to 1995. (Id. at ¶ 11.) This was time period when John Lawrence allegedly used Gold Bond talcum powder. Plaintiffs ask for jurisdictional discovery on Old 97’s actions in connection with directing the product used in Gold Bond to California.

The motion is CONTINUED to allow jurisdictional discovery.

The moving party is to give notice.