Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV04283, Date: 2023-06-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04283    Hearing Date: June 23, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH

Plaintiffs Juan Mojarro and Lucia Mojarro allege Juan Mojarro developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos in products supplied by Defendant The Freeman Manufacturing & Supply Company.  Defendant filed a motion to quash 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.)

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 defendant actions ‘based on’ products causing injury there.”  (Id. at p. 1027.) 

Plaintiffs’ objection to the Turco declaration is denied.  Defendant’s Objection No. 1 is denied.  The court does not rule on Defendant’s objection No. 2 because it did not rely on that evidence.

Defendant states it is an Ohio corporation and therefore there is no general jurisdiction over it.  Plaintiffs do not dispute the lack of general jurisdiction.

Defendant contends there is no specific jurisdiction because it has never done in business in California.  (Motion at p. 3.)  Defendant’s president states the company does not have any office space, stores, manufacturing facilities, warehouses, or distribution centers in California and has never sold, distributed, or supplied any asbestos-containing product in California.  (Turco Decl., ¶¶ 7, 12.)

Plaintiffs contend Defendant supplied asbestos-containing gasket material used by Juan Mojarro in California.  Plaintiffs attach a printout from Defendant’s website listing a location in California and stating, “Thousands of products are stocked at these locations as well as public warehouses to reduce your shipping costs.”  (Rose Decl., Ex. C at p. 2.)  A catalog from Defendant’s website also lists a Los Angeles warehouse and a Walnut, California address.  (Rose Decl., Ex. D at p. 4.)  Another website printout states Defendant’s “California warehouse has moved as of November 23, 2022.  The new warehouse is open for order processing and fulfillment,” and lists an address in Santa Fe Springs, California.  (Rose Decl., Ex. f at p. 1.)  A copy of Defendant’s 1998 website shows a location in the City of Industry, California.  (Rose Decl., Ex. E at p. 1.)  Defendant’s reply brief does not contest the existence of these warehouses and locations in California and does not explain why its president stated it has no warehouses or locations in California.  Plaintiffs have shown Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the benefits of California by doing business in the state.

Defendant next argues there is no evidence Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from Defendant’s products sold in California.  (Motion at pp. 7-8.)  Plaintiffs contend Mojarro used asbestos-containing gaskets sold by Defendant.  (Opposition at p. 4.)  Juan Martinez, who was Mojarro’s supervisor, stated Mojarro used sheet gasket material at his job at Rex Precision Products in California, Martinez ordered the sheet gasket material from Defendant, and asbestos was listed as an ingredient on the product.  (Martinez Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4, 6, 7.)  Thus, Plaintiffs have submitted evidence that their claims arise out of or relate to Defendant’s activities in California.

Defendant contends that because Turco stated the company has never sold asbestos-containing products, the conflict between his statement and Juan Martinez’ statement about purchasing asbestos-containing gasket material from Defendant must be resolved in favor of Defendant.  However, Turco does not state how he knows that Defendant never sold asbestos-containing products.  Turco started with the company in 2000.  (Turco Decl., ¶ 2.)  Yet Plaintiffs claim exposure to Defendant’s allegedly asbestos-containing products much earlier – in the late 1970s or 1980s when Plaintiff worked at Rex Precision Products.  (Martinez Decl., ¶ 3; First Amended Complaint, Ex. A.)  Turco’s declaration does not state he has any knowledge about Defendant’s products in the 1970s and 1980s and offers no basis for concluding he has any knowledge about those earlier products.  Therefore, Defendant did not show any conflict with Martinez’ declaration.

Nor did Defendant show that the exercise of jurisdiction in California would be unreasonable.

The motion is DENIED.

The moving party is to give notice.