Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV01500, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01500    Hearing Date: April 4, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS TO QUASH

            Plaintiffs Frank Cantu and Mirtola Cantu filed this action alleging Frank Cantu developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos.  Defendant Paccar Inc. Inc. 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 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; see also Zehia v. Superior Court (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 543, 552 [“ ‘[t]he plaintiff must do more than merely allege jurisdictional facts.  It must present evidence sufficient to justify a finding that California may properly exercise jurisdiction over the defendant.’  [Citation.]”].) 

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.) 

            Defendant presents evidence it is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Washington.  (Moore Decl., Ex. D.)  Plaintiffs do not contend there is general jurisdiction over Defendant.

Regarding specific jurisdiction, Defendant does not deny contact with California.  Rather, it argues “there is no connection between for forum of California and Plaintiffs’ exposure claims as to PACCAR” and “Plaintiffs’ claims do not arise out of, or relate to PACCAR’s contacts with California.”  (Motion at p. 4.) 

Plaintiffs argue they claim Cantu was exposed to asbestos in PACCAR trucks when he was employed at various trucking companies in and around Los Angeles.  (Opposition at p. 2.)  Plaintiffs cite Frank Cantu’s verified interrogatory response stating that while in the Teamsters’ Union he worked for various trucking companies in California and while doing that work, he was exposed to asbestos in trucks from Kenworth Truck Company.   (Moore Decl., Ex. C at pp. 5-6, 11.)  The verified response is a statement by Frank Cantu under oath, and therefore sufficient evidence for the purpose of this motion that Cantu’s exposure to asbestos in Defendant’s product took place in California. 

Defendant does not demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. 

The motion is DENIED.

The moving party is to give notice.