Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV35762, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV35762 Hearing Date: May 18, 2023 Dept: 15
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH
Plaintiffs Lynda Leblanc
and James Leblanc filed this action alleging Lynda Leblanc developed
mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos. Defendant The Stephan Co. 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 the
defendant. (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.” (Daimler 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.)
Defendant provided
evidence that it is incorporated and headquartered in Florida. (Large Decl., ¶ 2.) This evidence establishes California has no
general jurisdiction over Defendant.
Regarding
specific jurisdiction, Defendant argues it has never conducted business in
California. (Motion at p. 6.) It submitted evidence that in 1988, it
purchased Old 97 Company which it ran as a wholly owned subsidiary, neither
Defendant nor Old 97 Company did any work or business in California, Old 97 Company
manufactured Gold Bond products from 1990-1995, and neither Defendant nor Old
97 Company shipped or distributed any Gold Bond Products to California. (Large Decl., ¶¶ 5, 10, 11, 12.)
In
opposition, Plaintiffs argue Defendant made Gold Bond during the time James Leblanc
was using it (and exposing Lynda Leblanc) from 1975 to 2010. (Opposition at pp. 2, 3.) Plaintiffs request jurisdictional discovery
to show that Defendant or Old 97 Company advertised, sold, or distributed Gold
Bond to California. (Opposition at p. 9.)
The motion is CONTINUED
for Plaintiffs to take jurisdictional discovery concerning Defendant’s and Old
97 Company’s activities in California and their sale or distribution of Gold
Bond in California during the time James Leblanc was using the product. The hearing is continued to August 17, 2023
at 9 a.m. The parties may file
supplemental opposition and reply briefs on regular notice.
The
moving parties are to give notice.