Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV11688, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11688    Hearing Date: August 17, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH

Plaintiffs Alberto Santana and Ysenia Santana filed this action alleging Alberto Santana developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos.  Defendant The Stephan Co. 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 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.”  (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.) 

Defendant provided evidence that it is incorporated and headquartered in Florida.  (Large Decl., ¶ 2.)  This evidence establishes California has no general jurisdiction over Defendant.

            Regarding specific jurisdiction, Defendant argues it has never conducted business in California.  (Motion at p. 7.)  It submitted evidence that in 1988, it purchased Old 97 Company which it ran as a wholly owned subsidiary, neither Defendant nor Old 97 Company did any work or business in California, Old 97 Company manufactured Gold Bond products from 1990-1995, and neither Defendant nor Old 97 Company shipped or distributed any Gold Bond Products to California.  (Large Decl., ¶¶ 5, 10, 11, 12.)

            In opposition, Plaintiffs argue Defendant made Gold Bond during the time Alberto Santana was using it from the 1980s through 2010s.  (Opposition at p. 2; Complaint, ¶ 7.)  Plaintiffs request jurisdictional discovery to show that Defendant or Old 97 Company knew the Gold Bond products would be sold in California, or advertised, marketed, sold, or distributed Gold Bond to California.  (Opposition at pp. 8-99.) 

The motion is CONTINUED for Plaintiffs to take jurisdictional discovery concerning Defendant’s and Old 97 Company’s activities in and contacts with California and their advertising, marketing, sale or distribution of Gold Bond in California during the time Alberto Santana was using the product.  The hearing is continued to November 16, 2023 at 9 a.m.  The parties may file supplemental opposition and reply briefs on regular notice.

            The moving parties are to give notice.