Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: BC707741, Date: 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC707741 Hearing Date: August 2, 2022 Dept: SEC
WATSON v. MAKITA U.S.A. INC., ET
AL.
CASE NO.: BC707741
HEARING: 08/02/2022
JUDGE: MARGARET M.
BERNAL
Add On
TENTATIVE ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special
Interrogatories (set one) directed towards Defendant Makita U.S.A., Inc. is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant’s further responses to
Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (set one), Nos. 1 and 2.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s
Special Interrogatories (set one), Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Defendant Makita
U.S.A., Inc. is ordered to serve
code-compliant responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2, without
objection, within thirty (30) days of this ruling.
Moving Party to give Notice.
Background
Plaintiff Benjamin C. Watson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action
against Defendants Makita U.S.A., Inc. (“Makita USA”), Makita Corporation Of
America, and Makita Corporation (collectively “Defendants”) on May 24, 2018,
asserting causes of action for (1) negligence; (2) strict liability; and (3)
breach of implied warranty.
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was injured on March
19, 2017, while using an angle grinder manufactured by Defendants. The angle
grinder fell onto Plaintiff’s foot, causing injury. Plaintiff contends that the
angle grinder contains various manufacturing, design, and failure to warn
defects.
On June 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to
compel further responses to his Special Interrogatories from Defendant Makita
USA.
On July 6, 2022, Defendant Makita USA filed its opposition
to the motion.
On July 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed his reply.
Discussion
Plaintiff moves to compel Makita USA’s further responses to
Special Interrogatories (set one), Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, which seek
information pertaining to the issue of personal jurisdiction—discovery aimed at
gathering information regarding Makita Corporation’s contacts with California
for purposes of determining the purposeful availment prong of personal
jurisdiction.
“‘When jurisdiction is challenged by a nonresident
defendant, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that ‘minimum
contacts’ exist between defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of
personal jurisdiction.’ [Citation.] ‘The plaintiff has the right to conduct
discovery with regard to the issue of jurisdiction to develop the facts
necessary to sustain this burden.’ [Citation.]” (Magnecomp Corp. v. Athene
Co. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 526, 533 [emphasis added].)
“A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a
nonresident defendant only if: (1) ‘the defendant has purposefully availed
himself or herself of forum benefits’ [citation]; (2) ‘the “controversy is
related to or ‘“arises out of”’ [the] defendant’s contacts with the forum”’” [citation];
and (3) ‘“‘the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with “fair play
and substantial justice”’”’ [citations].” (Pavlovich v. Superior Court
(2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269.)
“‘“The purposeful availment inquiry ... focuses on the
defendant’s intentionality. [Citation.] This prong is only satisfied when the
defendant purposefully and voluntarily directs his activities toward the forum
so that he should expect, by virtue of the benefit he receives, to be subject to
the court’s jurisdiction based on”’ his contacts with the forum. [Citation.]” (Pavlovich
v. Superior Court, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 269.)
Here, the Special Interrogatories at issue, Nos. 1 to 6,
asked Makita U.S.A. to state the gross amount in purchase orders, the company
sent to Makita Corporation from 2016 to 2021, which identified California as
the location of delivery. (Cf. Separate Statement, filed June 2, 2022, pp.
2:6-7, SROG No. 1 [““State the gross amount in purchase orders that Makita
U.S.A, Inc. sent to Makita Corporation that identify California as the location
of delivery in 2016”].)
To each interrogatory, Makita USA gave the same following
objection:
Objections: Not
likely to lead to the production of evidence of facts establishing
jurisdiction. [Citations.] The request is also based on nothing more than a
mere hunch that it might yield jurisdictionally relevant facts. [Citation.] Furthermore,
the request is objectionable for the following reasons: vague, overbroad,
harassing, unduly burdensome, oppressive, misleading, invasion of privacy, and
seeks confidential commercial information. Moreover, the fact that a Makita
product was delivered to a California port of entry does not necessarily mean
it was sold in California. This request also asks about an irrelevant time
period that post-dates the subject incident.
(Separate Statement, filed June 2, 2022, pp. 2:9-16;
10:23-11:3; 19:12-20, 27:28-28:8, 36:16-24, 45:5-13.)
The Court disagrees with Makita USA that the interrogatories
will not lead to the production of evidence of facts establishing jurisdiction,
or in other words, that they seek irrelevant information.
A California court can assert “personal jurisdiction over a
nonresident corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce
with the expectation that they will be purchased by California consumers.” (In
re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 116.)
Indeed, “[e]ven an indirect effort to serve a California market for a
manufacturer’s product may reasonably make that manufacturer subject to suit in
California if its product has caused injury.” (Id. at p. 115.) “A
nonresident defendant’s indirect sales through its California distributors
constitutes economic activity in California as a matter of commercial actuality
when the defendant earned substantial gross income from that activity.” (Id.
at p. 116.)
Here, by seeking gross amount in purchase orders identifying
California as the location of delivery, the Court finds that Special
Interrogatories Nos. 1 to 6 seek relevant information concerning whether Makita
Corporation purposefully availed itself of the benefits in California.
However, the Court agrees with Defendant Makita USA that some
interrogatories are overbroad and seek information beyond when the injury
occurred.
“The relevant time period for measuring the nature and
quality of a nonresident defendant’s contacts with the forum for purposes of
specific jurisdiction is at the time the plaintiff's cause of action arose.”
(Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5
Cal.App.5th 215, 226 [emphasis added].)
Here, the Complaint alleges that “[o]n or about March 19,
2017, [Plaintiff] was using [Defendants’] Angle Grinder 9557NB …, when the
[grinder] malfunctioned and caused severe, permanent and disfiguring injuries
to Plaintiff’s body, including, but not limited to, his foot.” (Compl., ¶ 9.)
Since the injury occurred in 2017, there is no reason for
Plaintiff to request gross amount in purchase orders beyond that date.
Plaintiff argues that the 2021 US Supreme Court decision in Ford
Motor Co., 141 S.Ct. 1017 (“Ford Motor”), “in undertaking the
purposeful availment analysis, [the Supreme Court] considered not only when the
alleged injury-causing incident occurred …, but also the defendant’s current
contacts.” (Separate Statement, p. 15:10-12.) Therefore, Plaintiff argues, “the
relevant forum contacts of a defendant are not just those contacts that existed
at the time of the incident. Rather, the minimum contacts/purposeful availment
inquiry considers the defendant’s contacts as a whole, including its current
contacts.” (Separate Statement, p. 15:17-20.)
In opposition, Defendant Makita USA argues, “Plaintiff
cherry picks some language from the [Ford Motor] opinion in which the
Justices are using present tense verbs” to support his argument. (Opposition,
p. 16:21-22.) However, in Ford Motor, “Ford admitted there was
purposeful availment” and “addresses only the relatedness prong” of specific
jurisdiction. (Opposition, p. 16:20-21.) Moreover, “Plaintiff does not cite a
single case that stands for the proposition that post-accident conduct,
actions, or events are relevant to specific jurisdiction” (Opposition, p.
16:26-28.)
The Court agrees with Defendant. Indeed, even after the US
Supreme Court decided Ford Motor, the Ninth Circuit released an opinion
in 2022 stating as follows: “In the Ninth Circuit, we measure the extent of a
defendant’s contacts with a forum ‘at the time of the events underlying the
dispute.’ [Citations.]” (Ratha v. Phatthana Seafood Co. (9th Cir. 2022)
35 F.4th 1159, 1171; see also DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court (2002) 104
Cal.App.4th 1080, 1100–1101 [“Several federal courts have held that in
determining whether to exercise specific jurisdiction, ‘courts must examine the
defendant’s contacts with the forum at the time of the events underlying the
dispute....’ (Steel v. United States (9th Cir.1987) 813 F.2d 1545, 1549;
see also Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Portage La Prairie Mut. Ins. Co. (9th
Cir.1990) 907 F.2d 911, 913 [in analyzing purposeful availment, ‘[o]nly
contacts occurring prior to the event causing the litigation may be
considered’].)]”.)
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel
Makita USA’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (set one),
Nos. 3 (seeking gross amount in purchase orders in 2018), 4 (2019), 5 (2020),
and 6 (2021).
The Court grants the motion as to Special Interrogatories
(set one), Nos. 1 and 2, which seek gross amount in purchases orders from 2016
and 2017, respectively.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special
Interrogatories (set one) directed towards Defendant Makita U.S.A., Inc. is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant’s further responses to
Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (set one), Nos. 1 and 2.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant’s further responses to
Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (set one), Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Defendant Makita
U.S.A., Inc. is ordered to serve
code-compliant responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2, without
objection, within thirty (30) days of this ruling.
Moving Party to give Notice.