Judge Laura A. Seigle, Case 22STCV35762 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV35762, Date: 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35762 Hearing Date: January 18, 2023 Dept: 15

[TENATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS TO QUASH

Plaintiffs Lynda Leblanc and James Leblanc filed this action alleging Lynda Leblanc developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos. Defendants Brenntag Specialties, LLC and Brenntag North America, Inc. (“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.)

A. Brenntag North America

Brenntag North America presents evidence it is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. (Felder Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)

Regarding specific jurisdiction, Brenntag North America asserts that Plaintiffs cannot prove Lynda LeBlanc’s “alleged injuries were caused by any product manufactured, distributed, or sold by BNA in California or otherwise related to conduct engaged in by BNA in California.” (Motion at p. 3.) As stated in Ford, a plaintiff does not need to show a “causal relationship between the defendant’s in-state activity and the litigation” to avoid a motion to quash. (Ford, supra, 141 S.Ct. at p. 1026.) At this point, there only need be evidence that Brenntag North America has purposefully availed itself of forum benefits and the controversy is related to or arises out of its contacts with California. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 446.)

In opposition, Plaintiffs assert that Brenntag North America “had substantial and continuous talc-related contact with California.” (Opposition at p. 2.) However, its evidence of the sale and distribution of talc involve Brenntag Specialties, not Brenntag North America. (Id. at p. 3.) Plaintiffs asserts that Brenntag North America managed and directed Brenntag Specialties’ California activities. (Id. at p. 4.) In support of this assertion, Plaintiffs rely primarily on the deposition of Brad Owen who testified as a representative of Brenntag Specialties. (Stock Decl., Ex. C at p. 12.) Plaintiffs cite to pages 75-77, 83-85, 90- 93, 96-99, and 112. (Opposition at p. 4.) On pages 75-77, Owen testified Brenntag Specialties and Brenntag Pacific are subsidiaries of Brenntag North America and Brenntag Specialties sold talc to Brenntag Pacific. On pages 83-85, Owen testified Brenntag Specialties sold talc to Brenntag Pacific; Brenntag Specialties is the main Brenntag entity distributing talc; if someone in California wanted to buy talc from Brenntag, they would buy it from Brenntag Specialties; and Brenntag Specialties had offices in California. On pages 90-93, Owen testified Brenntag Specialties bought Whittaker Clark & Daniels; and Brenntag Specialties had sales people in California who sold talc to customers in California. On pages 96-99, Owen testified Brenntag Specialties shipped materials from New Jersey or Texas to a warehouse that Brenntag Specialties either leased or owned in California. On pages 112, Owen testified that when a customer ordered from Brenntag Specialties, some shipments would come from New Jersey. Plaintiffs also highlighted pages 113-115, 123-125, 131-132, and 136 where Owen testified Brenntag Specialties kept some talc in a third-party warehouse in California; Brenntag Specialties has employees in California; Brenntag Specialties has insurance for California; Brenntag Specialties has income from California; and Brenntag Specialties has warehouses in California.

In all of the cited and highlighted testimony described above, the only reference to Brenntag North America was that it owned Brenntag Specialties and Brenntag Pacific. Plaintiffs cite no law that merely owning a subsidiary that does business in California is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over the parent company.

Plaintiffs also cite another Owens deposition where he testified about being at Whittaker, Clark & Daniels and Brenntag Specialties and that Brenntag Specialties sells talc. (Stock Decl., Ex. L at pp. 11-13, 16-17.) Plaintiffs cite the deposition of Dennis St. George who testified about Whittaker, Clark & Daniels owning property in California; having offices, employees, and a registered agent in California; being sued about its distribution of talc in California; having insurance in California; and paying taxes in California. (Stock Decl., Ex. K at pp. 30-32, 37-40, 42-48.) Plaintiffs cite the deposition of David Wheat who testified that he is general counsel of Brenntag North America and responsible for legal matters pertaining to Brenntag Specialties; that Brenntag Specialties distributes chemicals; and about the origins of Brenntag Specialties. (Stock Decl., Ex. M at pp. 11, 13, 16-17, 20.) Plaintiffs submitted various Brenntag Specialties, Brenntag Pacific, and Whittaker, Clark & Daniels documents. (Stock Decl., Exs. B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J.) Plaintiffs submitted a document from the California Secretary of State website showing Brenntag North America was a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business in Pennsylvania and registered agents in California, and a Google search saying Brenntag North America is a subsidiary of Brenntag SE. (Stock Decl., Esx. N, O.)

In sum, the vast bulk of this evidence is about Brenntag Specialties, Brenntag Pacific, and Whittaker, Clark & Daniels. The only references to Brenntag North America are that it owns Brenntag Specialties and Brenntag Pacific, Brenntag North America’s general counsel handled legal matters pertaining to Brenntag Specialties, and Brenntag North America used to be registered with the California Secretary of State. None of this is evidence of “substantial and continuous talc-related contact with California” as Plaintiffs claimed. Nor is it evidence that Brenntag North America managed and directed Brenntag Specialties, as Plaintiffs assert. (Opposition at p. 4.)

Plaintiffs request jurisdictional discovery. There needs to be some basis in fact for jurisdictional discovery, some reason to conclude discovery is likely to produce evidence of California contacts sufficient for personal jurisdiction. (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 100, 127 [“In order to prevail on a motion for a continuance for jurisdictional discovery, the plaintiff should demonstrate that discovery is likely to lead to the production of evidence of facts establishing jurisdiction”].) Otherwise practically any company could be sued for almost anything in California and then be subject to jurisdictional discovery, even if there is no basis in reality for California to have jurisdiction over the defendant. Plaintiffs do not show sufficient basis for their assertion that Brenntag North America managed and directed Brenntag Specialties.

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

The moving party is to give notice.

B. Brenntag Specialties

Brenntag Specialties presents evidence it is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in New Jersey. (Felder Decl., ¶¶ 4, 7.)

Regarding specific jurisdiction, Brenntag Specialties asserts that Plaintiffs cannot prove Lynda LeBlanc’s “alleged injures were caused by any product manufactured, distributed, or sold by BNA in California or otherwise related to conduct engaged in by BNA in California” (Motion at p. 3.) As stated in Ford, a plaintiff does not need to show a “causal relationship between the defendant’s in-state activity and the litigation” to avoid a motion to quash. (Ford, supra, 141 S.Ct. at p. 1026.) At this point, there only need be evidence that Brenntag Specialties has purposefully availed itself of forum benefits and the controversy is related to or arises out of its contacts with California. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 446.)

Plaintiffs claim Brenntag Specialties supplied asbestos-containing talc for the manufacture of a product Plaintiff used. (Opposition at p. 2.) As described above, Plaintiffs have provided plenty of evidence that Brenntag Specialties suppled talc to the California market. However, Plaintiffs have not shown that this controversy is related to Brenntag Specialties’ contacts with California. Plaintiffs request jurisdictional discovery.

The motion is CONTINUED to April 13, 2023 at 9 a.m. for jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiffs may file a supplemental opposition and Defendant may file a supplemental reply on regular notice.

The moving party is to give notice.