Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV32540, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32540    Hearing Date: December 13, 2022    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS TO QUASH

            Plaintiffs Elaine Adelia Hickey Herman and Jacob Russell Herman, Sr. filed this action alleging Elaine Herman developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos.  Defendants IMI Fabi (USA), Inc., IMI Fabi (Diana) and IMI Fabi, LLC (“Defendants”) filed motions to quash service of summons on them 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.) 

IMI Fabi (USA), Inc. states it is the holding company of IMI Fabi, LLC and never did any business in connection with California.  (See Zuppini Decl. generally.)  IMI Fabi (Diana) states it sold talc for cosmetic, personal care, pharmaceutical, and food industries and never did any business in connection with California.  (See Brown Decl. generally.)  IMI Fabi, LLC states that before 2005, it sold only industrial grade talc for non-cosmetic applications and never did any business in connection with California.  (See Brown Decl. generally.)

            Plaintiffs do not contest that there is no general jurisdiction over Defendants.  Instead, Plaintiffs argue Defendants each “supplied defective asbestos-containing talc that was used to manufacture the talcum powder and cosmetic products she used while living in California.  (Oppositions at p. 2.)  Plaintiffs cite no evidence for this assertion and do not identify the talcum powder and cosmetic products for which Defendants allegedly provided the talc.  Plaintiffs failed to satisfy their initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction.  Plaintiffs ask for jurisdictional discovery, but having failed to present any evidence that Defendants sold any talc that was used in any product at issue here, and indeed having failed even to identify the talcum powder specific products at issue, Plaintiffs have not shown that jurisdictional discovery will likely lead to evidence establishing jurisdiction.

Therefore the motions are GRANTED, and the complaint against IMI Fabi (USA), Inc., IMI Fabi (Diana) and IMI Fabi, LLC is DISMISSSED without prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (h).

            The moving parties are to give notice.