Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: 23STCV31679, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV31679, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV31679 Hearing Date: July 31, 2024 Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 7-31-244

Case 23STCV31679

Trial Date: Not Set

QUASH SERVICE

MOVING PARTY: Specially Appearing Defendant, Stylenquaza LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Domingo Ojeda-Alvedrin, et al.

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 December 27, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a 972 paragraph complaint for negligence, strict liability – warning defect, strict liability – design defect, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranties, and loss of consortium. On January 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a 170.6 challenge thereby leading to reassignment from Department 12 to Department 68. On February 9, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a 1249 paragraph first amended complaint for negligence, strict liability – warning defect, strict liability – design defect, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranties, and loss of consortium. The complaint names a multitude of parties comprised of suppliers, sellers, etc.

On April 2, 2024, Costco Wholesale Corporation filed a cross-complaint for Implied Indemnity, Comparative Negligence, and Declaratory Relief. On April 3, 2024, Arizona Tile, LLC filed a cross-complaint for Comparative Indemnity and Apportionment of Fault, Total Equitable Indemnity, Contribution, and Declaratory Relief. On April 3, 2024, Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC filed a cross-complaint for Equitable Indemnity, Contribution and Apportionment, Declaratory Relief, and Express Contractual Indemnity.

RULING: Granted.

Specially appearing defendant Stylenquaza LLC moves to quash service of the summons and complaint on grounds of improper service, or alternatively lack of general or specific jurisdiction. The court electronic filing system shows no opposition; Moving Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition.

Stylenquaza LLC represents operations as a Texas limited liability company, with its principal place of business in Dallas. Stylenquaza LLC distributes quartz slabs imported from Vietnamese quartz manufacturer, Vicostone JSC. Stylenquaza LLC denies any business on the west coast of the United States, including California. Any and all Vicostone quartz into California was the result of Pental Granite and Marble, LLC distributing products to West Coast, the North East, Alaska and Hawaii. Stylequaza admits to the Purchase of slabs by Pental, which Stylequanza determined constituted a total of 11 slabs reaching California, equivalent to a total of 0.0001 percent of Vicostone product sold in California in 2013. Stylequaza also admits to the sale of pre-fabricated tops to California representing 0.03 percent of total product from 2018 to 2022, and six shipments with 22 slabs, with two of those ending up in Los Angeles County, thereby

constituting 0.001 percent of total product from 2020 to 2022. [Declaration of An Nguyen.] Stylenquaza LLC references prior cases, where three other courts found no basis of jurisdiction against Stylenquaza LLC, and granted its motions to quash service.

“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.)

General jurisdiction exists only in the defendant’s state of incorporation or principal place of business. (Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011) 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2856-2857; Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 134 S.Ct. 746, 749-750; BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1549, 1558.) The court noted that “in an ‘exceptional case,’ a corporate defendant's operations in another forum ‘may be so substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation at home in that State.’” (BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, supra, 137 S.Ct. at p. 1558 (citing Daimler AG v. Bauman, supra, 134 S.Ct. at p. 761 (footnote 19).)

“In order for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a claim, there must be an ‘affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State.’ [citation] When there is no such connection, specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant's unconnected activities in the State. [citation (‘[E]ven regularly occurring sales of a product in a State do not justify the exercise of jurisdiction over a claim unrelated to those sales’)].)” (Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, supra, 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1781.)

Stylenquaza LLC represents it operates as a Texas limited liability company with no business presence in the state of California. Stylenquaza LLC denies any continuous or systematic contacts in California. [Nguyen Decl.] Stylenquaza LLC also denies any directed activity through the product reaching Los Angeles County via Pental Granite and Marble, LLC.

Plaintiff submits no opposition regarding a business presence or jurisdiction based on the presence of the materials imported by Stylenquaza LLC. The court therefore grants the unopposed motion to quash.

Multiple motions to strike on August 5, 8, 14 to be heard in a consolidated hearing on August 14, 2024. Two demurrers scheduled for August 28 and September 5, 2024.

Stylenquaza LLC to give notice to all appearing parties.