Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV18173, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18173    Hearing Date: September 13, 2022    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH

            On June 1, 2022, Plaintiffs Hector Rene Apodaca and Dolores W. St. Amour filed this action alleging Apodaca developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos in products from Defendant Hollingsworth & Vose Company.  According to Plaintiffs, Apodaca was exposed to Defendant’s product when he used masks containing asbestos paper filters from Defendant.  (Gold Decl., ¶ 4.)  On August 17, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to quash service of summons on the ground that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over it.  

            Plaintiffs’ objections are overruled.

            Plaintiffs did not file an opposition.  Although there is a document in the court file labeled opposition, it is actually a proof of service.  Plaintiffs did file a declaration of Roger Gold in opposition to the motion.

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.)  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.) 

Defendant provided evidence that it is incorporated in Massachusetts and has its principal place of business in Massachusetts.  (Olohan Decl., ¶ 2.)  It has no office in California, has one employee living in California, and has a registered agent for service or process in California.  (Olohan Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.)  About 3.6% of its U.S. sales are in California.  (Olohan Decl., ¶ 6.)  Defendant argues this shows a lack of general jurisdiction over it.

Plaintiff argues the fact it has an employee and agent for service of process in California is sufficient for there to be general jurisdiction.  (Gold Decl., ¶ 9.)  These facts are not sufficient.  When a corporation is incorporated outside the state, has its principal place of business outside the state, generated less than 10% of its revenue in the state, had less than 5% of its total workforce in the state, and had only one of 24 facilities in the state, it was not “ essentially at home” in the state.  (BNSF Ry.Co. v. Tyrrell (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1549, 1554, 1559.)  Here, Defendant has even less of a presence in the state than the defendant did in BNSF.  Therefore, Defendant has shown, and Plaintiff failed to rebut, a lack of general jurisdiction.

Defendant argues it is not subject to California’s specific jurisdiction because Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the requirement that the controversy relate to or arise out of Defendant’s contacts with the forum.  According to Defendant, Plaintiff has not shown Vanderbilt supplied talc to a company that used the talc in a product used by Marni Regan.  (Motion at p. 5.)  Plaintiffs argue and present evidence that Vanderbilt has done business in California for years, has a processing facility here, and shipped its talc for use in products in California for years.  (Rahmes Decl., ¶¶ 4, 9, Ex. 5 at p. 4.)

Plaintiffs state they need additional time to discover the extent of Defendant’s contacts with California.  (Gold Decl., ¶ 11.)  Because this is a preference case, the continuance cannot be long.

The motion is continued to October 4, 2022 at 9 a.m.  Plaintiffs are to file an opposition by September 27, 2022.  Defendant is to file a reply by September 30, 2022.

The moving party is to give notice.