Judge: Thomas S. Mcconville, Case: 2020-01147090, Date: 2023-06-12 Tentative Ruling
Defendant Intex Glass (Ximin) Co., LTD’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED. (C.C.P. § 418(a)(1).)
A nonresident defendant has a liberty interest in not being subject to the judgments of a forum with which he or she has established no meaningful minimum contacts. (Vons Companies Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445, citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 471-472.) The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that a nonresident defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum state to support personal jurisdiction. (Aquila, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 570.) The plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that all jurisdictional criteria are met. (Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232.) If the plaintiff establishes that the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Stone v. Texas (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048.)
Given that plaintiff concedes that defendant is not subject to the general jurisdiction of California courts, (Opp. at p. 11), the court will analyze the question of specific personal jurisdiction.
The nonresident defendant must have purposefully directed its activities at the forum, or purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of local law. (Hanson v. Denckla (1958) 357 US 235, 253; see Vons Cos., Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at 446.) Injecting items into the stream of commerce is not sufficient to satisfy purposeful availment; nor is “foreseeability.” Rather, the “forum state does not exceed its powers under the Due Process Clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum state.” (Carretti v. Italpast, 101 Cal. App. 4th 1236, 1246 (2002) (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 298 (1980)) (quotations omitted))
Here, the undisputed facts are: defendant is Chinese company; defendant has not registered to do business in the state of California; defendant has no property in California; defendant has never advertised its glass products to consumers in California; all products manufactured by defendant are made in China; defendant did not manufacture the shower door at issue in this litigation; defendant sold its glass products to defendant Euroview (an Illinois company), who accepted the product (and took possession of it) in China.
Plaintiff’s argument (other than supposition concerning sales that might have occurred in California by defendant) essentially boils down to: defendant purposefully availed itself of California’s jurisdiction by utilizing the ports of California, along with its roadways.
As Carretti makes clear, the sale of the product in a foreign country to a California resident (unlike here where the sale was to an Illinois resident), does not render a foreign company subject to specific jurisdiction in California—even if it was foreseeable that the products could wind up in California. Foreseeability is not the same thing as having the “expectation that the products would be sold to California consumers.” Id. at 1246-1247. “Overall, [defendant]’s expectation should have been that the goods would be resold in the United States or abroad, wherever Carretti did business, with no particular focus on California.” Id. Like in Carretti, the sales to a California consumer took place through the unilateral activity of someone other than defendant. Id. at 1254.
“The unique burdens placed upon one who must defend oneself in a foreign legal system should have significant weight in assessing the reasonableness of stretching the long arm of personal jurisdiction over national borders.” Id. at 1248 (quoting Asahi Metal Industry Co. Ltd v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102,114 (1987) (quotations omitted).
The court finds the foregoing contacts do not demonstrate the requisite knowing and purposeful conduct needed to establish specific personal jurisdiction over defendant such that it should reasonably anticipate being hauled into court in California. Accordingly, Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that all jurisdictional criteria are met.
Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED. Specially Appearing Defendant is dismissed from the Complaint without prejudice. (C.C.P. § 581(h))
The court declines to take judicial notice of each party’s request, as those are not necessary for the court’s determination of this motion.
Based on this ruling, the court does not need to reach the issue of the service of the summons related to the Hague Service Convention.
Moving party shall give notice.