Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV19760, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19760    Hearing Date: April 27, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION 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.  On December 5, 2022, Defendant Cosmetic Specialties, Inc. filed a motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Plaintiffs asked for jurisdictional discovery, so at the January 5, 2023 hearing, the court continued the hearing date for several months to allow discovery.  Thereafter, the parties filed supplemental briefs.

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.) 

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 original opposition, Plaintiffs did 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 stated Defendant’s product at issue was Dr. Scholl’s talc.  However, in their original opposition papers, Plaintiffs presented no evidence of any relationship between Defendant and Dr. Scholl’s talc.

            Plaintiffs filed a supplemental opposition of 15 lines.  Plaintiffs merely state “Defendant brokered sales of asbestos-containing talc into California.”  (Supp. Opposition at p. 2.)  While that may be sufficient to establish Defendant availed itself of the benefits of California (if supported by evidence), that statement is not evidence that Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of or relate to Defendant’s California activities.  For example, Plaintiffs submitted no evidence that Defendant sold asbestos-containing talc into California that was then used to make Dr. Scholl’s talc.

The motion is GRANTED and the complaint against Cosmetic Specialties, Inc. is DISMISSSED without prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (h).

            The moving parties are to give notice.