Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV19273, Date: 2023-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19273    Hearing Date: October 18, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH (CHARLES B. CHRYSTAL)

            Plaintiff Michelle Pickering alleges she was injured as a result of asbestos exposure from Defendant Charles B. Chrystal Company’s products.  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 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 defend actions ‘based on’ products causing injury there.”  (Id. at p. 1027.) 

Plaintiff does not dispute there is no general jurisdiction over Defendant.

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s complaint does not identify the products she used that allegedly contained Defendant’s talc.  (Motion at p. 2.)  Defendant is correct.  Defendant argues Plaintiffs cannot prove specific jurisdiction because it never sold, shipped or marketed talc to any customers or companies in California.  (Motion at p. 8.)   

Only in her opposition does Plaintiff identify Avon and Estee Lauder as the brands to whom Defendant allegedly sold talc for products Plaintiff used.  (Opposition at p. 1.)  Plaintiff argues Defendant bought and stored talc in California and sold that talc to Estee Lauder, which used that talc to make the products Plaintiff used.  (Opposition p. 11.)  Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s evidence as hearsay and lacking authentication and objects to the use of a deposition taken in a prior case.  Plaintiff may be able to remedy such evidentiary deficiencies by taking jurisdictional discovery in this case.

Plaintiff has the right to discovery into Defendant’s conduct and activities in California during the period Plaintiff was using Avon and Estee Lauder powder products and the connection of those activities to Defendant’s sale of talc to Avon and Estee Lauder.  The request for discovery on issues of specific jurisdiction regarding those issues during the time Plaintiff used Avon and Estee Lauder talcum products is granted.  The hearing on the motion is CONTINUED to January 17, 2024 at 9 a.m.  Plaintiff may file a supplemental opposition brief and Defendant may file a supplemental reply brief on regular notice.

The moving party is to give notice.