Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV18841, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18841    Hearing Date: September 1, 2022    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH

            On June 8, 2022, Plaintiffs Marni Regan and Michael Regan filed this action alleging Marni Regan developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos in talc supplied by Defendant Vanderbilt Mineral, LLC.  According to Plaintiffs, Marni Regan was exposed to Defendant’s products at her business selling tile and stone to subcontractors and homeowners.  (Motion at p. 1.)  On August 9, 2022, Vanderbilt filed a motion to quash service of summons on the ground that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over it.   

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.) 

A.        Timeliness Issues

Defendant first seeks leave to make this motion to quash after the deadline.  Defendant explains that due to its counsel’s mistake, it did not realize the complaint and summons had been served on both Defendant and an affiliate.  Defendant showed good cause to enlarge the time to file the motion to quash.

Plaintiff argues that based on the September 1, 2022 hearing date, Defendant filed its motion a day late (on August 9 instead of August 8).  If Plaintiff needs additional time to oppose the motion given the one-day late service, Plaintiff should request additional time at the hearing and the Court will continue the hearing a brief period of time.

B.        Motion to Quash

Defendant provided evidence that it is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Connecticut (Stewart Decl., ¶ 2), and therefore it is not a resident of California and not subject to its 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.)

In Ford, the Supreme Court held that where Ford advertised, sold, and serviced the car model in the state for years, the state had personal jurisdiction and where the plaintiff alleged that model malfunctioned and injured the plaintiff in the state, the state had personal jurisdiction over Ford.  (Ford, supra, 141 S.Ct. at p. 1028.)  Similarly here Defendant has processed and shipped talc in and to California for years, and Plaintiffs allege that talc injured Marni Regan in California.  This is sufficient to show this litigation is related to Defendant’s contacts with California.  At this point, Plaintiffs do not need to prove that Defendant’s talc actually caused injury Regan. 

Defendant did not show that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over it would be unfair or unreasonable.

The motion is DENIED.

The moving party is to give notice.