Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV32540, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32540    Hearing Date: December 21, 2022    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION 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.  Defendant Girard Motors, Inc. 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.) 

            Defendant states it was incorporated in Connecticut and has its principal place of business there where it sells and repairs cars.  (Motion at p. 4.)  Plaintiffs did not present any evidence that Defendant has any location in California or is subject to California’s general jurisdiction.

            Defendant argues there is no specific jurisdiction because Plaintiffs live in Connecticut, and Elaine Herman was allegedly exposed to Defendant’s asbestos when her father worked at Defendant’s business in Connecticut.  (Motion at p. 4.) 

The complaint alleges Defendant is “a Premise Defendant, for the Gerard Motors facility in Groton, Connecticut”).  (Complaint, ¶ 3.)  It alleges Elaine Herman’s father “was exposed to asbestos products and dust from asbestos products due to environmental exposure from Defendant[] Girard Motors, Inc. . . . which he then brought home on his work clothes, in his vehicle and on his body including his hair, which resulted in Plaintiff Elaine Adelia Hickey Herman’s exposure to asbestos.”  (Complaint, ¶ 36.)  This occurred in the 1960s in Groton, Connecticut.  (Complaint, Ex. A at p. 55.)  Based on these allegations, the premises liability claim against Defendant is based solely on events taking place in Connecticut when both Elaine Herman and her father lived in that state.  Plaintiffs present no evidence that Defendant has any connections to California.

            Plaintiffs failed to satisfy their initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction.  Plaintiffs ask for jurisdictional discovery but did not show that jurisdictional discovery will likely lead to evidence establishing jurisdiction, especially given Plaintiffs’ allegations that the exposure caused by Defendant occurred in Connecticut.

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

            The moving party to give notice.