Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STC08409, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STC08409    Hearing Date: October 6, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH (COSMETIC)

Plaintiffs Jill Diaz, Michael Pardo, Joni Standley, and Darren Pardo filed this action alleging Teresa Pardo developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos in Defendant Cosmetic Specialties, Inc.’s products.  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 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.”  (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 defend actions ‘based on’ products causing injury there.”  (Id. at p. 1027.) 

Defendant is incorporated in New Jersey and has its principal place of business in New Jersey.  (Katerndahl Decl., Exs. C, D.)  This evidence establishes California has no general jurisdiction over Defendant, and Plaintiffs do not argue otherwise.

Defendant argues it has not engaged in activities availing itself of the benefits of doing business in California related to Plaintiffs’ claims.  (Motion at p. 12.)  Plaintiffs contend Defendant supplied talc to Avon, Covergirl, Revlon, Gold Bond, and Estee Lauder, and Teresa Pardo used their products.  (Opposition at p. 1.)  Plaintiff cites no evidence of this.  The only evidence Plaintiffs submitted is that it distributed talc for Cyprus Mines.  (Opposition at pp 3-4.)  But that is not evidence that Plaintiffs’ arise out of or relate to Defendant’s activities in California.

Plaintiffs state they need jurisdictional discovery.  Defendant filed this motion on June 15, 2023, and the court has already continued the hearing twice for jurisdictional discovery.  Plaintiffs do not explain why they were not to complete jurisdictional discovery in the last three and a half months.  Nor do Plaintiffs specify the additional discovery they need. 

There must 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”].)  When a plaintiff is not able to make an offer of proof of the existence of “additional relevant jurisdictional evidence,” a court does not abuse its discretion in denying jurisdictional discovery.  (Ibid.)  Plaintiffs did not demonstrate that further discovery is likely to lead to the production of evidence of facts establishing Defendant sold talc for use in Avon, Covergirl, Revlon, Gold Bond, and Estee Lauder products or that Plaintiffs’ claims are otherwise related to or arise out of Defendant’s contacts with California.  

The motion is GRANTED and the complaint against Defendant Cosmetic Specialties, Inc. is DISMISSSED without prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (h).

            The moving party is to give notice.