Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV28807, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV28807    Hearing Date: February 16, 2024    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH

On November 15, 2023, Plaintiffs Jerry Kudenov and Kathryn Kudenov filed this action alleging that Jerry Kudenov developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos in Defendant CSC Scientific Company, Inc.’s products.  Defendant filed its 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 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 states it is incorporated in Maryland and has its principal place of business in Fairfax, Virginia.  (Motion at p. 2.)  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 that he was exposed to Defendant’s supplied or distributed asbestos-containing products in California. (Motion at p. 4.)  Defendant correctly argues that neither the complaint nor the preliminary fact sheet attached to the complaint name Defendant, specify the products from Defendant that exposed Kudenov to asbestos, or state any activities in California that Defendant engaged in or contacts that Defendant had with California.  

            Plaintiffs did not file any opposition and, therefore, failed to satisfy their initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction.

Therefore, the motion is GRANTED, and the complaint against Defendant CSC Scientific Company, Inc. DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (h).

            The moving party is to give notice.