Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00598, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 22AHCV00598    Hearing Date: August 31, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE aso FIRSTMAN, et al.,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

NORITZ AMERICA COPORATION, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 22AHCV00598

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: CROSS-DEFENDANT ADCO INTERNATIONAL PLASTICS CORPORATION’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

August 31, 2023

 

 

 

 

On August 19, 2022, plaintiff Fire Insurance Exchange (“FIE”) a/s/o Firstman filed this action against defendants Noritz America Corporation (“Noritz”), ADCO International Plastics Corporation (“ADCO”), and PWC Enterprises, Inc. dba Southeastern Filtration & Equipment (“PWC”), for strict products liability and negligence relating to home improvement products and water filtration systems and component parts.  (Compl., ¶¶ 3, 7, 11.)  Plaintiff alleges that on August 24, 2019, the “property” (presumably the real property) and personal property of its insured’s residence sustained damage as a result of a sudden and uncontrolled discharge of water from failed water filter/canister, and/or its component parts or attachments manufactured by Noritz, ADCO, and PWC.  (Compl., ¶¶ 14-15.) 

On October 12, 2022, PWC filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1-25.  On October 25, 2022, ADCO moved to quash service of summons of FIE’s complaint. 

On November 3, 2022, PWC amended the cross-complaint to add ADCO as a cross-defendant.

On November 15, 2022, Noritz filed a Cross-Complaint against PWC. 

On November 16, 2022, FIE dismissed ADCO from the complaint without prejudice and ADCO took its motion to quash off calendar. 

On July 28, 2023, ADCO moved to quash service of summons of PWC’s cross-complaint on the grounds that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction because ADCO is a Georgia company that does not have the requisite minimum contacts with the State of California.  The motion is unopposed. 

On a motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff (or, in this case, cross-complainant) has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the prima facie facts entitling the court to assume jurisdiction.  (Rivelli v Hemm (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 380, 393 (when nonresident defendant moves to quash service of summons, plaintiff has burden of proving factual bases justifying exercise of jurisdiction); Lebel v Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1160 (plaintiff has burden of proving facts showing effective service in compliance with statutory requirements.) 

Here, ADCO filed a notice of non-opposition and the Court does not see that an opposition from PWC is on file.  Therefore, PWC necessarily fails to meet its burden to show the prima facie facts allowing the Court to exercise jurisdiction over ADCO. 

Accordingly, ADCO’s motion to quash is GRANTED.

 

Moving party to give notice.

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

 

Dated this 31st day of August 2023

 

 

 

 

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court