Judge Laura A. Seigle, Case Number: 23STCV21311, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV21311, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV21311 Hearing Date: March 7, 2024 Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH

On September 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this action alleging Otilia Rosas developed mesothelioma from asbestos in Defendant Cosmetic Specialties, Inc.’s products. Defendant filed a motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs asked for jurisdictional discovery, and so at the original hearing the court continued the hearing. Thereafter Plaintiffs did not file a supplemental brief.

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 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 in New Jersey and has its principal place of business in Merchantville, New Jersey. (Katerndahl Decl., Exs. C, D; Grexa Decl., ¶ 5.) Therefore, it is not a resident of California and not subject to its general jurisdiction. Plaintiffs do not argue otherwise.

Defendant argues that it has not engaged in business in California. (Motion at p. 11.) Plaintiffs contend Defendant supplied talc to Avon Products, Inc. which had facilities in California. (Opposition at p. 1; Seitz Decl., Ex. 2 at pp. 61-63; Katerndahl Decl., Ex. A at p. 22.) As evidence, Plaintiffs filed an excerpt from the deposition of Gina Grant about Avon at one time having a manufacturing facility in Pasadena and the Preliminary Fact Sheet generally mentioning “various” Avon product(s). (Seitz Decl., Ex. 2 at pp. 61-63; Katerndahl Decl., Ex. B. at p. 2.) Plaintiffs do not identify the specific Avon products Otilia Rosas used or the time period she used those products.

After the court continued the hearing date to allow jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiffs did not file a supplemental brief or additional evidence showing that Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of or relate to Defendant’s contacts with California.

Because Plaintiffs did not satisfy their burden, the motion is GRANTED. The complaint against Cosmetic Specialties, Inc. is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (h).

The moving party is to give notice.