Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV39957, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV39957    Hearing Date: February 2, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 2, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(2) Motions to Quash Service of Summons

Moving Party: Specially Appearing Defendants Cosentino Group, S.A. and Stylenquaza LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Rodolfo Garcia-Rosas and Alma Delia Llamas

T/R:     SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANTS COSENTINO GROUP, S.A. AND STYLENQUAZA LLC’S MOTIONS TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ARE CONTINUED TO MAY 10, 2024 AT 9:00AM TO ALLOW FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY. PLAINTIFF MAY FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS OF NO LONGER THAN EIGHT PAGES PER DEFENDANT BY APRIL 26, 2024. EACH DEFENDANT MAY FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF NO LONGER THAN EIGHT PAGES BY MAY 3, 2024.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE. 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On March 13, 2023, Plaintiffs Rodolfo Garcia-Rosas and Alma Delia Llamas filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Architectural Surfaces, Inc., et al., asserting causes of action for (1) negligence; (2) strict liability – warning defect; (3) strict liability – design defect; (4) fraudulent concealment; (5) breach of implied warranties; and (6) loss of consortium. Plaintiff alleges he developed silicosis and consequential injuries through his employment working with stone products manufactured, distributed, and/or supplied by Defendants.

ANALYSIS

“A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.”  (CCP § 418.10(a)(1).)  “When a motion to quash is properly brought, the burden of proof is placed upon the plaintiff to establish the facts of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Aquila, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 568.)

A non-resident defendant may be subject to either general or specific jurisdiction. (See Elkman v. National States Insurance Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1314.)  General jurisdiction exists when a defendant is domiciled in the forum state or his activities there are substantial, continuous, and systematic. (F. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 782, 796.)

Specific jurisdiction involves a 3-part test in California. California courts adopt the same test as the test used by the court in Boschetto v. Hansing (9th Cir. Cal. 2008) 539 F.3d 1011,1016: “ ‘(1) The nonresident defendant must do some act or consummate some transaction with the forum or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-related activities; and (3) exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.’ Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen (9th Cir. 1998) 141 F.3d 1316, 1320 [applying California law].).” (Jewish Defense Organization, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. of Los Angeles County (Rambam) (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1054.)

A. Cosentino Group, S.A.’s Motion to Quash

Specially Appearing Defendant Cosentino Group, S.A. moves to quash service of summons on the grounds that service was defective and that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant.

1. Service

Defendant was served by personal service on their Vice President at a company event in British Columbia, Canada. Defendant asserts this service was improper as it failed to comply with the Hague Convention requirements. Article 10 of the Hague Convention states:

Provided the State of destination does not object, the present Convention shall not interfere with -

a) the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad,

b) the freedom of judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of origin to effect service of judicial documents directly through the judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of destination.          

Here, the state of origin is California. The parties dispute the meaning of “state of destination.” Defendant asserts this term refers to Spain because Defendant is a Spanish corporation. Plaintiff asserts the term refers to Canada because that is where service took place. The Court finds that “state of destination” means the state in which service is taking place. Nothing in the Hague Convention or the California Code of Civil Procedure requires service on a foreign person or foreign corporation in the state of residency or domicile. Article 10 allows for service directly through competent persons of Canada.

Plaintiff has presented evidence showing service was effected by Canadian process servers in compliance with British Columbian laws. The California Code of Procedure allows service on a corporation via personal service of its vice president. (CCP § 416.10(b).) It also allows for service on individuals outside the United States. (CCP § 413.10(c).) Plaintiff has complied with Section (b) of Article 10.

2. Personal Jurisdiction

There is no dispute the Court lacks general jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant asserts the Court also lacks special jurisdiction because Defendant is merely a “holding company” that does not make or distribute the stone products as issue in this action. In opposition, Plaintiff presents evidence showing Defendant markets itself as the main entity that controls its stone manufacturing and distribution; Plaintiff requests jurisdictional discovery.

Jurisdictional discovery is appropriate. Plaintiff is entitled to learn the nature and extent of Defendant’s involvement with its stone manufacturing and distribution to California.

The motion is CONTINUED.

B. Stylenquaza LLC’s Motion to Quash

Specially Appearing Defendant Stylenquaza moves to quash service of summons on the grounds that service was defective and that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Plaintiff has since re-served Defendant with summons and complaint, making this aspect of the motion moot.

There is no dispute that the Court lacks general personal jurisdiction over Defendant, a TX based company.

Defendant distributes quartz slabs supplied by a Vietnamese quartz manufacturer, Vicostone JSC. Defendant represents that it does not regularly do business in California but admits that it directly distributed 22 slabs to California from 2018-2022, and has distributed slabs to Defendant Pental Granite and Marble, LLC, who then distributes to California.

Defendant asserts that these contacts are insufficient to establish purposeful availment and that they are not related to Plaintiff’s claims. The Court agrees that there is no evidence these contacts are related to Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to Defendant’s products but does not provide any declarations or other evidence supporting this allegation. The Court will allow jurisdictional discovery on the issue of Defendant’s contacts with California and its distribution of slabs to Pental and Marble.

Defendant’s motion is CONTINUED.