Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV11602, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11602    Hearing Date: April 8, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 4-8-24

Case 23STCV11602

Trial Date: Not Set

QUASH SERVICE

MOVING PARTY: Specially Appearing Defendant, Caesarstone LTD

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Wendy Viridinia Solano-Castro

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Wendy Viridinia Solano-Castro, et al. alleges the wrongful death of Raul Garcia-Leon caused from as a stone fabricator and installer. Plaintiffs contend working with “toxic” stone products led to the development of silicosis and death of Garcia-Leon on February 16, 2023.

On May 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 582 paragraph complaint for negligence, strict liability – warning defect, strict liability – design defect, fraudulent concealment, and breach of implied warranties. The complaint names a multitude of parties comprised of suppliers, sellers, etc. The case was deemed non-complex on June 5, 2023, and assigned to Department 68 on June 7, 2023.

On October 11, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer of MS International, Inc. to the fourth cause of action with 20 days leave to amend. On November 2, 2023, Caesarstone USA, Inc. filed a cross-complaint for indemnity, declaratory relief and apportionment. On December 29, 2023, Lowes Home Centers, LLC filed a cross-complaint indemnity, declaratory relief and apportionment.

OBJECTION

Plaintiffs object to the Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by Defendant Caesarstone, Ltd. on February 5, 2024 because it is improper and untimely. Nevertheless, the Court will analyze the Motion on its merits.

RULING: Denied.

Specially appearing defendant Caesarstone LTD moves to quash service of the summons and complaint on grounds of lack of general or specific jurisdiction. Plaintiff in opposition maintains Caesarstone LTD made a general appearance and therefore waived the right to bring a motion to quash on grounds of general or specific jurisdiction. Plaintiff alternatively requests an opportunity to substantively respond to the merits of the jurisdictional challenges if the court grants relief on the concurrent motion for relief. Specially appearing defendant Caesarstone LTD in reply argues that Plaintiff’s opposition is made purely on technical procedural grounds and therefore the motion should be granted.

“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. (Citation.) Once facts showing minimum contacts with the forum state are established, however, it becomes the defendant's burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Citation.) When there is conflicting evidence, the trial court's factual determinations are not disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. (Citation.) When no conflict in the evidence exists, however, the question of jurisdiction is purely one of law and the reviewing court engages in an independent review of the record.” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 449; Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc. (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1258-59.)

“A California court may exercise judicial jurisdiction over nonresidents on any basis not inconsistent with the United States Constitution or the California Constitution. (Citations.) The general rule is that the forum state may not exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident unless his relationship to the state is such as to make the exercise of such jurisdiction reasonable. If a nonresident defendant's activities may be described as ‘extensive or wide-ranging’ (Citation) or ‘substantial ... continuous and systematic’ (Citation), there is a constitutionally sufficient relationship to warrant jurisdiction for all causes of action asserted against him. In such circumstances, it is not necessary that the specific cause of action alleged be connected with the defendant's business relationship to the forum.

“If, however, the defendant's activities in the forum are not so pervasive as to justify the exercise of general jurisdiction over him, then jurisdiction depends upon the quality and nature of his activity in the forum in relation to the particular cause of action. In such a situation, the cause of action must arise out of an act done or transaction consummated in the forum, or defendant must perform some other 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. Thus, as the relationship of the defendant with the state seeking to exercise jurisdiction over him grows more tenuous, the scope of jurisdiction also retracts, and fairness is assured by limiting the circumstances under which the plaintiff can compel him to appear and defend. The crucial inquiry concerns the character of defendant's activity in the forum, whether the cause of action arises out of or has a substantial connection with that activity, and upon the balancing of the convenience of the parties and the interests of the state in assuming jurisdiction. (Citations.)”

(Cornelison v. Chaney (1976) 16 Cal.3d 143, 147–148.)

“Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. A nonresident defendant may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if his or her contacts in the forum state are ‘substantial ... continuous and systematic.’ (Citations.) …

“If the nonresident defendant does not have substantial and systematic contacts in the forum sufficient to establish general jurisdiction, he or she still 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.) …

“The United States Supreme Court has described the forum contacts necessary to establish specific jurisdiction as involving variously a nonresident who has ‘purposefully directed’ his or her activities at forum residents (Citation), or who has ‘purposefully derived benefit’ from forum activities (Citation), or ‘“purposefully avail[ed himself or herself] of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.”’ (Citation). The court also has referred to the requisite forum contact as involving a nonresident defendant who ‘“deliberately” has engaged in significant activities with a State [citation] or has created ‘continuing obligations' between himself and residents of the forum [citation]’ (Citation), concluding that in such cases the defendant ‘manifestly has availed himself of the privilege of conducting business [in the forum], and because his activities are shielded by “the benefits and protections” of the forum's laws it is presumptively not unreasonable to require him to submit to the burdens of litigation in that forum as well.’ (Citation.)”

(Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 445–446; Muckle v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 218, 227.)

As addressed in the concurrent motion for relief from the general appearance, Caesarstone LTD submitted a general appearance in the action on January 16, 2024, and the court denies relief from this appearance. “A defendant appears in an action when the defendant ... gives the plaintiff written notice of appearance, or when an attorney gives notice of appearance for the defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1014.) “[A] party waives any objection to the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction when the party makes a general appearance in the action.” (Roy v. Superior Court (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 337, 341; Dial 800 v. Fesbinder (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 32, 52.) The motion is therefore denied on this basis.

Moving defendant ordered to file a responsive pleading within 30 days from the date of this order.

Case Management Conference, and two OSCs re: Sanctions set for April 15, 2024.

Caesarstone LTD to give notice to all parties.

Dept.
68

Date:
4-8-24

Case
23STCV11602

Trial
Date: Not Set

WITHDRAW APPEARANCE

MOVING
PARTY: Specially Appearing Defendant, Caesarstone LTD

RESPONDING
PARTY: Plaintiff, Wendy Viridinia Solano-Castro

RELIEF
REQUESTED

Motion
for Order Allowing Withdrawal of Notice of Appearance

SUMMARY
OF ACTION

Wendy
Viridinia Solano-Castro, et al. alleges the wrongful death of Raul Garcia-Leon
caused from as a stone fabricator and installer. Plaintiffs contend working
with “toxic” stone products led to the development of silicosis and death of
Garcia-Leon on February 16, 2023.

On
May 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 582 paragraph complaint for negligence, strict
liability – warning defect, strict liability – design defect, fraudulent
concealment, and breach of implied warranties. The complaint names a multitude
of parties comprised of suppliers, sellers, etc. The case was deemed
non-complex on June 5, 2023, and assigned to Department 68 on June 7, 2023.

On
October 11, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer of MS International, Inc. to
the fourth cause of action with 20 days leave to amend. On November 2, 2023,
Caesarstone USA, Inc. filed a cross-complaint for indemnity, declaratory relief
and apportionment. On December 29, 2023, Lowes Home Centers, LLC filed a
cross-complaint indemnity, declaratory relief and apportionment.

EVIDENTIARY
OBJECTIONS

Specially
Appearing defendant makes the following objections to plaintiff’s evidence
submitted in opposition to Caesarstone LTD’S Motion to Withdraw Notice of Appearance.

Objection
No. 1: Declaration of Raphael Metzger, Exhibit B: purported article titled
“Caesarstone Silicosis Disease Resurgence Among Artificial Stone Workers,” that
was published in the journal Chest
which
mentions the 1997 case of alleged Caesarstone-induced “silicosis who had been
occupationally exposed to Caesarstone, 60% of whom needed lung transplants.”
(Declaration of Raphael Metzger, filed March 15, 2024; p. 3: 10-17 [“Metzger
Decl.”].)

Objection
No. 2: Declaration of Raphael Metzger, Exhibit C: purported and alleged
admission of Caesarstone that “In response to questions posed by regulators
investigating the silicosis who had been occupationally exposed to Caesarstone,
60% of whom needed lung transplants. Caesarstone admitted that by 2010 it knew
that people working with the product were getting sick as a result. It also
admitted that it only began putting warning labels on its product after deaths
of Israeli workers from silicosis were aired on Israeli television in 2010.”
(Metzger Decl. 3:18-21.)

Objection
No. 3: Declaration of Raphael Metzger, Exhibit D: Allegation that “In 2012
Caesarstone issued a Safety Data Sheet which stated that “this preparation is
not classified as hazardous according to the latest adaption of European Union
Directives 67/548/EEC and 1995/45/EC.” Also, the statement: “This Safety Data
Sheet also said: “General room ventilation is satisfactory under anticipated
use conditions.”…This false statement has caused illness and deaths of
thousands of workers.” (Metzger Decl. 3:22-28).

Objection
No. 4: Declaration of Raphael Metzger, Exhibit E: a purported statement from
the European Union Directives, regarding the Exhibit D “admission” of
Caesarstone: ”This was a false statement, because EU Directive 67/548/EEC
classifies as “dangerous” “substances and preparations” those that are “very
toxic,” “which if they are inhaled . . . may involve extremely serious . . .
chronic health risks and even death.” (Metzger Decl. 3: 24-26.)

Objection
No. 5: Declaration of Raphael Metzger, Exhibit F to exhibit 1: a purported
Annual Report stating: ”In 2015 Caesarstone filed its Annual Report with the
SEC acknowledging: “We are party to 60 . . . and that Caesarstone USA had been
sued for causing silicosis in a fabricator in the United States as early as
2012.” (Metzger Decl. p. 4: 1-12.)

Objection
No. 6: Declaration of Raphael Metzger, Exhibit G to exhibit 1: a purported
article regarding Caesarstone LTD distribution, stating “In 2016 Ublester
Rodriguez sued C & C North America, Inc. (Caesarstone’s domestic
subsidiary) . . . with the State of California. (Metzger Decl. 4: 13-27.)

However,
Specially Appearing defendant did not properly format the objections per California
Rules of Court Rule 3.1354. Therefore, the Court will not rule on them.

RULING: Denied.

Defendant Caesarstone LTD moves to withdraw its prior
January 16, 2024, appearance in the action on grounds of mistake, inadvertence
and/or excusable neglect. Plaintiff in opposition maintains the motion is
brought in bad faith and warrants sanctions, lacks procedural compliance in
that no responsive documents was presented along with the request, and reiterates
the terms of the extension of time to respond conditioned on the appearance.
Plaintiff also proceeds to list the basis of liability against Caesarstone LTD,
including known harms from the product based on prior medical studies from
Israel and an SEC annual report acknowledging pending lawsuits against the
entity. Plaintiff continues with acknowledgment the existence of Caesarstone
USA in May 2015, and the manufacture of the product in Georgia, with a
marketing facility in Van Nuys, CA, but prior to this period, all products were
imported from Israel through the Port of Long Beach. Defendant states in its
reply, that the withdrawal of notice of appearance is proper where the attorney
was not authorized to file the notice of appearance because the Notice of
Appearance on behalf of Caesarstone LTD was made by mistake and not authorized
by Caesarstone LTD. Further, Caesarstone LTD argues that Plaintiff cannot show
undue prejudice by the granting of this Motion because Plaintiff has not
propounded any discovery to Defendant Caesarstone LTD.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473 subdivision (b) provides
in part: “The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his
or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other
proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief ... shall be made
within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment,
dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” The appearance was entered on
January 16, 2024, the and the subject motion filed on February 9, 2024.
[Declaration of Christine Brice, Ex. D.]

Counsel maintains the appearance was entered on the mistaken
belief of approval from the client, when in fact Caesarstone LTD intended to
challenge jurisdiction (see concurrent motion to quash). [Brice Decl, ¶¶ 8-9.] Counsel
represents both Caesarstone LTD, as well as Caesarstone USA, an entity not
challenging jurisdiction.

Plaintiff challenges the pleading requirement for relief in
that the concurrently scheduled motion to quash was filed on February 5, 2024.
The court acknowledges the decoupled timeline, but finds Plaintiff’s
hyper-technical argument elevates form over substance for purposes of
considering the purpose of the substantive relief requested.

The court therefore accepts the motion to quash as a
responsive pleading within the meaning of the code. The court appreciates the
circumstances and necessity for relief in order to proceed with the concurrent
motion to quash on the basis of lack of general or special jurisdiction.

It appears from the correspondence that any further
extension to respond by Plaintiff was conditioned on the submission of an
appearance [Brice Decl., ¶ 7 , Ex. C; Declaration of Raphael Metzger, Ex. H-M.]
Counsel apparently conceded to the extension terms regardless of the later
claimed lack of authorization. [Metzger Decl., Ex. N-O.] The requested relief
therefore depends on a finding that Caesarstone LTD would have simply filed its
motion to quash in lieu of a notice of appearance, though no such option was
readily available under the terms of the agreement, and Caesarstone LTD makes
no such argument.

Plaintiff’s conditioning of the extension was therefore indisputably
tied to the general appearance. Plaintiff clearly understood the purpose of
compelling the appearance given the extensive history of imported Caesarstone
LTD products before 2015, which overlaps with decedent’s period of exposure.
[Metzger Decl.] In other words, there is no indication that Plaintiff simply
named Caesarstone LTD based on its affiliation with Caeasarstone USA, but
instead seeks to present a claim based on direct liability.

More importantly, Caesarstone LTD was presumably aware of
the prior lawsuits, and only allegedly clarified the scope of permission for
counsel after the deadline lapsed. The court finds no supported basis for a
finding of justifiable, excusable fault for this course of action, and instead
concludes Caesarstone LTD knowingly elected to weigh its options. The delays
were the result of client decision making, not excusable mistake by counsel. (Benedict v. Danner Press (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 923, 929-930; Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225,
1251-1252.)

The court, in its discretion finds the conditioned excuse lacking
support. The motion for relief is therefore DENIED.

Case Management Conference, and two OSCs re: Sanctions set
for April 15, 2024.

Caesarstone LTD to give notice to all parties.