Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV24956, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV24956 Hearing Date: October 28, 2022 Dept: 15
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH
On
August 3, 2022, Plaintiffs Ronald Babb and James Hefner (“Plaintiffs”) filed
this action alleging Patricia Balt died as a result of asbestos exposure. Defendant PTI Union, LLC (“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.” (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.)
Plaintiffs do not contest
that there is no general jurisdiction over Defendant.
Defendant argues that
Plaintiffs cannot prove specific jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant
“is a contractor that blends, bottles and packages goods to customer
specifications,” and those customers “control and direct the shipment of all
talc-containing products from” Defendant.”
(Motion at p. 7.) Defendant
states it did not systematically serve any market in California and took no
action directed towards California residents.
(Id. at pp. 7-8.) Apart
from a conclusory declaration making these broad statements, Defendant
submitted no evidence of these assertions.
Plaintiffs argues that “a
manufacturer’s placement of goods in the stream of commerce with the
expectation that that they will be purchased or used by consumers in California
indicates an intention to serve the California market ‘directly or indirectly”
and constitutes purposeful availment if the income earned by the manufacturer
from sale or use of its product in California is substantial,” quoting Bridgestone
Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 767, 777. (Opposition at p. 2.) Plaintiff asks for jurisdictional discovery.
“In
the products liability context, merely placing a product into the stream of
commerce, even with knowledge that the product might enter the forum state, is
not a sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction over a nonresident
defendant. [Citations.] On the other hand, ‘if the sale of a product
of a manufacturer or distributor . . . is not simply an isolated occurrence,
but arises from the efforts of the manufacturer or distributor to serve,
directly or indirectly, the market for its product in other States, it is not
unreasonable to subject it to suit in one of those State if its allegedly
defective merchandise has there been the source of injury to its owner or to
others.’ [Citation.]” (Jayone, supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at pp.
558-559.)
Plaintiffs have the right
to discover whether Defendant’s sale of products to customers in California was
more than an isolated occurrence and arose from Defendant’s efforts to market
its products in California. The request
for discovery on issues of specific jurisdiction is granted. The hearing on the motion is continued to
January 25, 2023 at 9 a.m.
The moving party is to
give notice.