Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV19760, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19760    Hearing Date: January 5, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS TO QUASH

            Plaintiffs David Barlia, Kevin Barlia, and Louis Barlia filed this action alleging Louis Barlia developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos in products from various defendants who then filed motions to quash service of summons. 

A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over the defendant.  (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.) 

I.          Scholl’s Wellness Company LLC

On November 30, 2022, Defendant Scholl’s Wellness Company LLC filed a motion to quash service of summons on the ground that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over it.  Plaintiffs did not file an opposition.

Defendant provided evidence that it is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in New Jersey.  (Akopyan Decl., Ex. B.)  This evidence establishes California has no general jurisdiction over Defendant, and Plaintiffs do not argue otherwise.

Defendant argues there is no special jurisdiction because it did not exist until after Barlia’s use of Dr. Scholl’s foot powder.  (Motion at pp. 3, 6.)  Therefore, Defendant’s contacts with California after Defendant was formed in 2019 have nothing to do with Barlia’s exposure.  (Ibid.)  Defendant claims that when it was created via an Asset Purchase Agreement, it did not assume any liability for claims arising out of related to exposure to asbestos.  (Id. at p. 7; Akopyan Decl., Ex. D, ¶¶ 3-4.) 

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 and the complaint against Scholl’s Wellness Company LLC is DISMISSSED without prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (h).

II.        Vari-Lite, LLC

On November 30, 2022, Defendant Vari-Lite, LLC filed a motion to quash service of summons on the ground that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over it individually or as successor-in-interest to Strand Lighting, LLC.

Defendant provided evidence that it is incorporated in Texas and has its principal place of business in Texas.  (Smith Decl., ¶ 6.)  This evidence establishes California has no general jurisdiction over Defendant, and Plaintiffs do not argue otherwise.

Defendant argues it is not the successor-in-interest to Strand Lighting because Strand Lighting is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GTG LLC and a sister corporation to Defendant.  (Motion at p. 3.)  Defendant did not agree to assume Strand Lighting’s liabilities, Strand Lighting’s business is being terminated by way of a bankruptcy, there will be no transfer of assets to Defendant, and Defendant is not a continuation of Strand Lighting.  (Id. at pp. 8-9.) 

Plaintiffs contend they need discovery on the relationship between Strand Lighting and Defendant.  (Opposition at p. 4.)

Plaintiffs are correct that they do not need to take Defendant’s assertion that it assumed no liability at face value.  Defendant bases its argument on a declaration stating in somewhat conclusory fashion that Strand Lighting and Defendant have completely separate businesses.  (See, e.g., Smith Decl., ¶¶ 8, 9, 11.)  Plaintiffs have the right to take discovery on the issue of successor liability.

The motion is continued to April 6, 2023 at 9 a.m. for Plaintiffs to take discovery on the issue of Defendant’s successor liability.  Plaintiffs and Defendant may file supplemental opposition and reply briefs based on regular notice.

III.       Signify North America Corporation

On November 30, 2022, Defendant Signify North America Corporation filed a motion to quash service of summons on the ground that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over it individually or as successor-in-interest to Strand Lighting, LLC.

Defendant provided evidence that it is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in New Jersey.  (Smith Decl., ¶ 7.)  This evidence establishes California has no general jurisdiction over Defendant, and Plaintiffs do not argue otherwise.

Defendant argues it is not the successor-in-interest to Strand Lighting because Strand Lighting is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant, Defendant did not agree to assume Strand Lighting’s liabilities, Strand Lighting’s business is being terminated by way of a bankruptcy, there will be no transfer of assets to Defendant, and Defendant is not a continuation of Strand Lighting.  (Motion at p. 8.) 

Plaintiffs contend they need discovery on the relationship between Strand Lighting and Defendant.  (Opposition at p. 4.)

Plaintiffs are correct that they do not need to take Defendant’s assertion that it assumed no liability at face value.  Defendant bases its argument on a declaration stating in somewhat conclusory fashion that Strand Lighting and Defendant have completely separate businesses.  (See, e.g., Smith Decl., ¶¶ 9, 10, 14.)  Plaintiffs have the right to take discovery on the issue of successor liability.

The motion is continued to April 6, 2023 at 9 a.m. for Plaintiffs to take discovery on the issue of Defendant’s successor liability.  Plaintiffs and Defendant may file supplemental opposition and reply briefs based on regular notice.

IV.       Cosmetic Specialties, Inc.

On December 5, 2022, Defendant Cosmetic Specialties, Inc. filed a motion to quash service of summons on the ground that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. 

Defendant provided evidence that it is incorporated in New Jersey and has its principal place of business in New Jersey.  (Katerndahl, Exs. C, D.)  This evidence establishes California has no general jurisdiction over Defendant, and Plaintiffs do not argue otherwise.

Defendant argues it has not engaged in activities availing itself of the benefits of doing business in California related to Plaintiffs’ claims.  (Motion at pp. 9, 10.)  In their opposition, Plaintiffs do not identify any product manufactured, distributed, or sold by Defendant that exposed Barlia to asbestos.  Likewise, the complaint does not allege that Defendant did business in or related to California in connection with any particular product Barlia used.  The only mention of a particular product is in the preliminary fact sheet, where Plaintiffs state Defendant’s product at issue was Dr. Scholl’s talc.  However, Plaintiffs present no evidence of any relationship between Defendant and Dr. Scholl’s talc.

Plaintiffs ask for additional discovery.  Defendant states it agrees to continue the hearing on the motion to allow the discovery.  The motion is continued to April 6, 2023 at 9 a.m. for Plaintiffs to take jurisdictional discovery.  Plaintiffs and Defendant may file supplemental opposition and reply briefs based on regular notice.

            The moving parties are to give notice.