Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV18682, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18682    Hearing Date: February 2, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH

Plaintiffs Michael Pickard, individually and as successor-in-interest to James Pickard, and Ahsha Pickard and Sam Adams, individually, filed this action alleging James Pickard (“Decedent”) developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos.  On January 6, 2023, Defendant Gare Incorporated (“Defendant”) filed a motion to quash service of summons 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.”  (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.) 

Defendant states its principal place of business and state of incorporation is in Massachusetts.  (Motion at p. 6; Alaimo Decl., ¶¶ 4, 5.)  Plaintiffs do not contest that there is no general jurisdiction over Defendant.

Defendant asserts that it is not subject to specific jurisdiction because Defendant’s activities in California are not related to Plaintiffs’ exposure claims.  (Motion at pp. 13, 14.)  Defendant argues Plaintiffs cannot prove Defendant sold products in California in the pertinent 1964 to 1977 time period.  Defendant argues it has no sales records for California between 1964 to 1977 and did not manufacture products in California.  (Alaimo Decl., ¶¶ 10, 13.)  Apart from a conclusory declaration, Defendant submitted no evidence of these assertions.  Also, the Alaimo declaration does not state that Gare never sold, distributed, or advertised its products to businesses in California.

Plaintiffs presents evidence that Defendant currently sells products in California.  (Opposition at p. 5; Alaimo Decl. ¶ 12.)  Defendant distributes products through a California warehouse.  (Opposition at p. 5; Cook Decl., Ex. 2.)  Plaintiffs request jurisdictional discovery.

Plaintiffs have some evidence that Defendant targets the California market.  Plaintiffs have the right to discover the extent of Defendant’s contacts with California in 1964 to 1977.  Therefore, the motion is CONTINUED to May 4, 2023 at 9 a.m. for Plaintiffs to conduct jurisdictional discovery.  Plaintiffs and Defendant may file supplemental opposition and reply briefs based on regular notice.

The moving party is to give notice.