Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV01500, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01500    Hearing Date: April 6, 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 Cummins, 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 asserts without evidence it is incorporated in Indiana and has its principal place of business in Indiana.  (Motion at p. 2.)  Plaintiffs do not contend there is general jurisdiction over Defendant.

Regarding specific jurisdiction, Defendant seems to acknowledge it sells products in California and therefore has contacts with California.  It focuses its argument on the lack of any connection between Defendant’s contacts with California and Frank Cantu’s exposure to asbestos.  (Motion at p. 7.)  Plaintiffs argue they claim Cantu was exposed to asbestos from Defendant’s truck engines, gaskets, and axles in California.  (Opposition at pp. 3-4.)  They cite Frank Cantu’s verified interrogatory response stating that while in the Teamster’s Union he worked for various trucking companies in California and was exposed to asbestos in the truck brakes manufactured by Defendant.  (Gold Decl., Ex. B at pp. 5-6, 8.)  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 from Defendant’s brakes 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.