Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22STCV29728, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV29728 Hearing Date: January 23, 2024 Dept: A
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs sustained injury when
Plaintiff, Commander Mike-Price, who was then six years old, ingested a button
battery from the remote for an air conditioning unit made by Defendants.
Plaintiffs allege claims for negligence and strict products liability.
Specially
appearing Defendant, Midea Electric Trading (Singapore) (“METS”) moves to quash
service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. METS is a Singapore
corporation and lacks minimum contracts with California sufficient for the
Court to exercise personal jurisdiction.
In
opposition, Plaintiffs argue that METS purposefully availed itself of
California’s privileges by regularly using California ports to import and
distribute its window air conditioning units in the United States. METS has
systematically served the California market with its air conditioners which
caused injury to Plaintiffs. Exercise of jurisdiction over METS is not
unreasonable. Plaintiffs ask for a
continuance to conduct jurisdictional discovery if the Court is inclined to
grant the motion.
In
reply, METS argues that it did not ship the subject air conditioner and remote
to California. It was not involved in the shipping process. The manufacturer
shipped the product which was cosigned by Home Depot. There is no basis for the
Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over METS. The documents submitted by
Plaintiffs are unauthenticated, hearsay evidence downloaded from a website.
California recognizes two ways in which
the constitutional “minimum contacts” requirement may be satisfied. General
jurisdiction exists where the nonresident defendant's contacts with the forum
state are so “extensive or wide-ranging” (Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior
Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 893, 898-899) as to justify jurisdiction even for
purposes unrelated to the defendant's contacts. (Safe-Lab, Inc. v. Weinberger (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1050, 1053. Alternatively, specific jurisdiction is
conferred where the plaintiff establishes that the non-resident defendant has
purposefully availed itself of forum benefits by directing its activities at
forum residents thus invoking the benefits and protections of local law. (Hanson
v. Denckla (1958) 357
U.S. 235, 253.)
The
“purposeful availment” requirement is satisfied “where the forum-related
contacts proximately result from actions by the Defendant himself that created
a ‘substantial connection’ with the forum State, and the controversy is related
to or ‘arises out of a defendant's contacts with the forum.’” (Burger
King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471
U.S. 462, 475.)
Where personal jurisdiction is challenged,
the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate by a preponderance of the
evidence that sufficient minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the
forum state.
Plaintiffs
argue that using California’s ports to ship products is sufficient to exercise
specific jurisdiction over METS, since it purposefully directs activities to
California residents. Plaintiffs’ authority
was not decided solely on the manufacturer’s use of California ports. Rather,
the manufacturer “engaged in a number of direct sales transactions with
multiple California distributors of its consumer products.” (Jayone
Foods, Inc. v. Aekyung Industrial Co. Ltd. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th
543, 556.) The manufacturer had an ongoing business relationship
with the California distributor and sold “thousands of units of its products.”
(Jayone
at 557.) Accordingly,
the Court concluded that the manufacturer "did not merely place its
products into the stream of commerce with an awareness that they might end up
in California. Rather, [the manufacturer] purposefully directed its activities
toward California businesses when it repeatedly sold its products to various
California distributors over a seven-year period. [The manufacturer] also
purposefully derived benefits from its activities in California when it
generated almost $2 million in revenue from these California sales." (Jayone
at 559.)
Plaintiffs
argue that METS sold 20,810 metric tons of air conditioners to California-based
businesses including Home Depot shipped through California ports. (Opp. 6: 16:23).
Plaintiffs rely on data obtained from “ImportGenius,” a company that provides
real-time shipment records for all imports and exports to the United States
among other countries. (Reed Declaration, ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs submit copies of
webpages published by ImportGenius. (Id. Ex. 5.)
Plaintiffs must submit specific
evidentiary facts, “through affidavits and other authenticated documents,
sufficient to allow the court to independently conclude whether jurisdiction is
appropriate and cannot rely on allegations in an unverified complaint or vague
and conclusory assertions of ultimate facts.” (Swenberg
v. Dmarcian, Inc. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 280, 291.)
The website information is not authenticated and is hearsay. METS’s objections are
SUSTAINED.
A plaintiff has the right to conduct
discovery regarding the issue of jurisdiction to develop the facts necessary to
sustain the plaintiff’s burden. (Mihlon
v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710.)
The court has discretion to grant the request if it determines discovery is
appropriate. (Goehring
v. Superior Court (Bernier) (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 894, 911.)
As Plaintiffs do not submit admissible
evidence, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request to conduct discovery relevant to
the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over METS.
The Court
notes that Defendants, GD Midea Air Conditioning Equipment Co., LTD and Wuhu
Maty Air Conditioning Equipment, Inc. Ltd., have each filed special motions to
quash on grounds the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them as both
parties lack minimum contacts with the forum state (among other arguments.) Both
motions are set to be heard on February 29, 2024.
Plaintiffs’
oppositions to those motions are not yet due, therefore, it is not clear
whether Plaintiffs will rely on the same inadmissible website information from
ImportGenuis. To the extent Plaintiffs intend to request a continuance to
conduct jurisdictional discovery with respect to these entities, the Court is
inclined to grant the request, and continue the hearings on all three motions
to _____________________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department A of the Compton
Courthouse.
The
time for Plaintiffs’ oppositions thereto and specially appearing parties’
replies will be based on the continued hearing date, and subject to the
deadlines imposed by Code of Civil Procedure, section 1005.