Judge Laura A. Seigle, Case Number: 22STCV35762, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV35762, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35762 Hearing Date: March 28, 2024 Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH

On November 11, 2022, Plaintiffs Lynda Leblanc and James Leblanc filed this action alleging that Lynda Leblanc developed mesothelioma from asbestos in products from Defendant The Stephan Co. and other defendants. Defendant 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 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.)

"In a case raising liability issues, a California court will have personal jurisdiction over a successor company if (1) the court would have had personal jurisdiction over the predecessor, and (2) the successor company effectively assumed the subject liabilities of the predecessor." (CenterPoint Energy, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1120.)

Defendant provided evidence that it is incorporated and headquartered in Florida. (Jacobi Decl., � 2; Motion at p. 5.) This evidence establishes California has no general jurisdiction over Defendant.

Regarding specific jurisdiction, Defendant argues that it has not engaged in business in California. (Motion at p. 5.) 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. (Jacobi Decl., �� 5, 10, 11, 12.)

In their opposition, Plaintiffs argue Defendant manufactured, stored, and shipped Gold Bond during the early 1970s to the 2000s when James Leblanc was using the product in California and secondarily exposed Lynda Leblanc. (Opposition at p. 2.) Plaintiffs request jurisdictional discovery to show that Defendant or Old 97 Company advertised, sold, or distributed Gold Bond to California. Defendant objections that the documents on which Plaintiffs rely are inadmissible and contends there is no evidence Defendant shipped any products to California.

One of the purposes of discovery is to obtain admissible evidence. That Plaintiffs rely on evidence to which Defendant objections can be solved by allowing discovery so that Plaintiffs can obtain admissible evidence.

The Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is CONTINUED to June 26, 2024. Plaintiffs and Defendant may file supplemental opposition and reply briefs based on regular notice.

The moving party is to give notice.