Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV06710, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06710    Hearing Date: August 3, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH

Plaintiff Irma Bllesteros filed this action alleging she developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos in Avon products.  On June 2, 2023, Defendant Cosmetic Specialties, Inc. filed a motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction for hearing on June 30, 2023.  On June 30, 2023, Defendant failed to appear at the hearing, and the court took the motion off calendar.

On July 6, 2023, Defendant re-filed the motion to quash for hearing on August 3, 2023.  On July 27, 2023, defense counsel filed a declaration stating his office had mistakenly not calendared the June 30, 2023 hearing date, which was why no attorney appeared at the hearing for Defendant.  This declaration shows that an attorney mistake was the reason for the non-appearance, and based on that the court will give leave to re-file the motion.  However, because Defendant filed the declaration with its reply, Plaintiffs did not have an opportunity to respond.  If Plaintiffs wish an opportunity to respond to the declaration, the court will continue this hearing.

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 provided evidence that it is incorporated in New Jersey and has its principal place of business in New Jersey.  (Katerndahl, Exs. B, C.)  This evidence establishes California has no general jurisdiction over Defendant, and Plaintiff does not argue otherwise.

Defendant argues it has not engaged in activities availing itself of the benefits of doing business in California related to Plaintiff’s claims.  (Motion at pp. 8-9.)  Plaintiff contends Defendant supplied talc to Avon, and then Plaintiff used Avon products made in California.  (Opposition at p. 1.)  Plaintiff cites no evidence of this.  Indeed, Plaintiff submits no evidence about Defendant.  The only evidence she filed is an excerpt from a deposition about Avon at one time having a manufacturing facility in California.

Plaintiff states she needs jurisdictional discovery.  Defendant does not object to jurisdictional discovery.  Therefore, the motion is CONTINUED to October 17, 2023 at 9 a.m. to allow for jurisdictional discovery.  The parties may file supplemental opposition and reply briefs according to the statutory schedule.

            The moving party is to give notice.