Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV07224, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV07224    Hearing Date: October 11, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS TO QUASH (VANDERBILT MINERAL)

            Plaintiffs David Grundfast and Erika Camera allege Michael Grundfast was exposed to asbestos in talc supplied by Defendant Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC, Inc.  On May 25, 2023, 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.  (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 defend actions ‘based on’ products causing injury there.”  (Id. at p. 1027.) 

Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC provided evidence that it is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Connecticut (Stewart Decl., ¶ 2), and therefore it is not a resident of California and not subject to its general jurisdiction. 

Defendant argues it is not subject to California’s specific jurisdiction unless Plaintiffs can prove Grundfast was exposed in California to asbestos in a product that contained Defendant’s talc.  (Motion at p. 4.)  The complaint provides no information about the specific products at issue.  Even the opposition fails to identify the specific products, instead stating very vaguely “Mr. Grundfast was exposed to asbestos-containing Vanderbilt products.”  (Opposition at p. 3.)  Instead of identifying any product containing Defendant’s talc, Plaintiffs asked for time to take discovery.  The court continued the hearing date twice.  Plaintiffs have now had four and a half months since the motion was filed to take discovery but they have not identified any product that allegedly exposed Grundfast to asbestos from Defendant.

The motion to quash is GRANTED and the complaint against Defendant Vanderbilt Minerals LLC is DISMISSSED without prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (h).

The moving party is to give notice.