Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV08405, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08405    Hearing Date: September 1, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH

            Plaintiffs Sonia Nivia Baro Martinez and Abelardo Luna filed this action alleging Sonia developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos in products from various defendants.  Defendant Port Jervis Laboratories, Inc. filed a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction arguing it does not do business in California and Plaintiff’s claims do not arise out of or relate to its contacts with California.

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.”  (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.) 

Plaintiffs do not dispute that there is no general jurisdiction over Defendant.

            Defendant argues it has no office, employees, or property in California and does not sell products in California.  (Motion at p. 8.)  Defendant argues Plaintiff did not allege any exposure to any particular asbestos-containing product made by or connected to Defendant.  (Motion at pp. 8-9.)

            Plaintiffs argue, and submits evidence, that Defendant had a manufacturing plant and a sales office in California during the time of exposure.  (Opposition at pp. 5-6; Ex. D.)  Plaintiffs ask for jurisdictional discovery.

But neither the complaint nor Plaintiffs’ opposition describe the products Sonia Baro Martinez used.  The complaint only refers to “asbestos and products containing asbestos” and “asbestos and asbestos-containing talc.  (Complaint, ¶ 34, Ex. A.)  The opposition states she used “cosmetic talc products designed by Defendant Jafra Cosmetics International, Inc.”  (Opposition at p. 2.)  That is too vague and covers different types of products.  Without identifying the products she used (which only Plaintiffs know), it is impossible to define the appropriate scope of jurisdictional discovery.  First, Plaintiffs need to identify the Jafra products Sonia Baro Martinez used.

Once Plaintiffs identify those products, Plaintiffs may conduct jurisdictional discovery  concerning Defendant’s activities in and contacts with California and its manufacturing of the particular Jafra products during the time Plaintiff was using those products. 

The motion is CONTINUED for Plaintiffs to identify the specific Jafra products Sonia Baro Martinez used and to take jurisdictional discovery described above.  The hearing is continued to December 1, 2023 at 9 a.m.  The parties may file supplemental opposition and reply briefs on regular notice.

            The moving parties are to give notice.