Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV30677, Date: 2023-06-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30677    Hearing Date: February 16, 2024    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS TO QUASH (IMI FABI (DIANA))

            Plaintiffs Lucille Lazio and John Lazio filed this action alleging Lucille Lazio developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos in products from Cover Girl, Revlon, and Estee Lauder.  (Opposition at p. 1.)  Defendant IMI Fabi (Diana), LLC filed a motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Plaintiffs contended they needed jurisdictional discovery.  The court continued the hearing for three month to allow for such discovery.  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 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 defend actions ‘based on’ products causing injury there.”  (Id. at p. 1027.) 

IMI Fabi (Diana), LLC states it is a North Carolia company with its headquarters in New York until it closed in 2004 and had no connections to California.  (See Brown Decl. generally.)

Plaintiffs do not contest that there is no general jurisdiction over Defendants.  Instead, Plaintiffs argue that IMI Fabi (Diana), LLC supplied “defective asbestos-containing talc which was used to manufacture the cosmetic products to which she was exposed.  (Oppositions at p. 1.)  Plaintiffs cite to evidence that IMI Fabi (Diana) sold certain talc used to make Cover Girl and Revlon products.  (Opposition at pp. 2-3.) 

In their supplemental brief, Plaintiffs contend IMI Fabi Diana sold Talc 141 to Noxell for use in Cover Girl products.  (Supp. Opposition at p. 2.)  This does not establish that IMI Fabi (Diana) had contacts with California or that Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of or relate to or IMI Fabi (Diana)’s contacts with California.

Plaintiffs also say there was a distribution agreement between IMI Fabi LLC and Cosmetic Specialty for Cosmetic Specialty to distribute talc, including in California.  (Supp. Opposition at p. 3.)  However, the existence of the distribution agreement with IMI Fabi LLC does not establish that IMI Fabi (Diana) had contacts with California or that Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of or relate to or IMI Fabi (Diana)’s contacts with California.

Plaintiffs contend that Cosmetic Specialty’s witness testified that IMI Fabi (unclear which IMI Fabi entity) sold directly to customers.  (Supp. Opposition at p. 3.)  This is not evidence that IMI Fabi (Diana) sold directly to customers in California or that Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of or relate to IMI Fabi (Diana)’s contacts with California.

Plaintiffs state they need more discovery because and IMI Fabi (Diana) has not yet produced documents requested by Plaintiff.  (Supp. Opposition at pp. 6-7.)

The court continues the hearing to May 15, 2024 at 9 a.m.  If Plaintiff is going to file a motion to compel jurisdictional discovery, it must file the motion forthwith.  The parties may file supplemental briefs according to the statutory schedule.

            The moving parties are to give notice.