Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV35762, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV35762 Hearing Date: January 19, 2023 Dept: 15
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS TO QUASH
Plaintiff
Lynda Leblanc and James Leblanc filed this action alleging he developed
mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos in talc supplied by Defendant Vanderbilt
Mineral, LLC, Vanderbilt Chemicals, LLC, and R.T. Vanderbilt Holding Company,
Inc. The Vanderbilt entities filed three
motions 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.)
A. Vanderbilt
Minerals, LLC
Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC provided
evidence that it is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of
business in Connecticut (Stewart Decl., ¶ 2), and therefore it is not a
resident of California and not subject to its general jurisdiction.
Defendant argues it is
not subject to California’s specific jurisdiction unless Plaintiffs can prove
Lynda Leblanc used a product in California that contained Vanderbilt Minerals,
LLC’s talc. (Motion at p. 5.) Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC does not contend
that it has not sold or shipped talc to California. It does not contend that it has not
continuously and deliberately exploited California’s market. Instead, Defendant seeks to force Plaintiff
to prove at this point in the litigation that Defendant’s product caused
Plaintiff’s injury. 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 needs
to 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 any event, Plaintiff
submitted sufficient evidence. R.T. Vanderbilt
Company sold talc to DAP. (Stock Decl.,
Ex. G at p. 162.) Plaintiffs allege
exposure to asbestos from DAP products. (Complaint,
¶ 9.) R.T. Vanderbilt Company operated a
mine in California and had a sales office in California. (Stock Decl., Ex. B at pp. 39-40; Ex. E at p.
1430.) R.T. Vanderbilt Company was
registered with the California Secretary of State. (Stock Decl., Ex. F.) Vanderbilt Minerals acknowledges that it is
the successor to R.T. Vanderbilt Company.
(Reply at p. 2.)
Plaintiffs have
established that Vanderbilt Minerals’ predecessor R.T. Vanderbilt Company continuously
and deliberately exploited California’s market and that Plaintiffs’ case is
related to that contact, at least with respect to its claim that DAP products
caused the exposure.
Defendant did not show
that exercising personal jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play
and substantial justice.
The motion is DENIED. The moving party is to give notice.
B. R.T.
Vanderbilt Holding Company, Inc.
For some reason, R.T.
Vanderbilt Holding Company, Inc. does not state where it is incorporated or
headquartered. It just says that some
unidentified person ran a search on the California Secretary of State website
and found no results for R.T. Vanderbilt Holding Company. (Motion at p. 2; Cole Decl., Ex. 2.) That is not adequate evidence that R.T.
Vanderbilt Holding Company, Inc. is not incorporated or headquartered in
California.
R.T. Vanderbilt Holding
Company, Inc. states “it has never been in the talc or asbestos business.” (Motion at p. 2.) Plaintiffs request jurisdictional
discovery. Plaintiffs are not required
to accept as true the unsupported statements that Defendant is not incorporated
or headquartered in California and has never been in the talc or asbestos
business.
The motion is CONTINUED
to April 13, 2023 at 9 a.m. Plaintiffs
may file a supplemental opposition and Defendant may file a supplemental reply
on regular notice.
The moving party is to
give notice.
C. Vanderbilt
Chemicals, LLC
The motion was filed late. Defendant explained the reasons for the late
filing, and Plaintiffs showed no prejudice.
The court grants leave to file the late motion.
Vanderbilt Chemicals, LLC
provides evidence it was formed in Delaware and headquartered in
Connecticut. (Motion at p. 3; Cole
Decl., Ex. 2.)
Vanderbilt Chemicals, LLC
states “it has never been in the talc or asbestos business” and it “believes
Plaintiffs have no evidence that it had any involvement with any of the claimed
talc or asbestos products that she alleged as the causes of her harm.” (Motion at pp. 3, 4.) As state above, this is the wrong
standard. A plaintiff does not need to
prove causation to defeat a motion to quash.
Plaintiffs request
jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiffs are
not required to accept as true the unsupported statements that Defendant has
never been in the talc or asbestos business.
The motion is CONTINUED to
April 13, 2023 at 9 a.m. Plaintiffs may
file a supplemental opposition and Defendant may file a supplemental reply on
regular notice.
The moving party is to
give notice.