Specially appearing Defendant NCH Corporation?s (?NCH?) motion for order quashing service of the summons and complaint of Plaintiff Fire Insurance Exchange a/s/o/ Guy Lund is granted.
A nonresident defendant may not be called upon to defend in a foreign forum unless he or she has minimal contacts with that state to exercise power over that party. (Hensa v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S. 235, 251.)? 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 requirements 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.)
Personal jurisdiction may be general or specific. ?A nonresident defendant may be subject to general jurisdiction if his or her contacts with the forum are substantial, continuous and systematic.? (Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co. (1952) 342 U.S. 437, 445.)
A nonresident defendant may be subject to specific jurisdiction if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits, and (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant?s contacts with the forum. (Vons Companies Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 446 [citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472-473].)? The assertion of jurisdiction over the defendant must also be reasonable ? that is, comport with fair play and substantial justice.? (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, supra, 471 U.S. at pp. 477-478.)
The fact that the defendant has a registered agent for service of process in California does not establish that a California court has jurisdiction over the defendant.? (Gray Line Tours of Southern Nevada v. Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co., Inc. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 190, 193-194.)? But the fact that a defendant is, and remained, outside California does not preclude a California court from exercising personal jurisdiction over him.? (Checker Motors Corporation v. Superior Court(1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1007, 1016 [noting the modern technology permits so much to be done from a distance]).? On the other hand, it is also not enough for jurisdiction that the defendant acted outside California in a way that foreseeably caused on effect in California.? (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 272-273.)? The nonresident defendant must have purposefully directed his activities at California with the knowledge it would cause harm in California.? (Ibid.;Checker Motors Corporation v. Superior Court, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 1016.)
For specific jurisdiction, an individual?s contacts with the forum state must have a substantial connection to the plaintiff?s claim, though the contacts need not be the legal cause of the plaintiff?s injury or even directed at the plaintiff.? (Vons Companies Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 452, 455, 460-462.)
Specific to jurisdiction over a foreign corporation, as a general rule the single fact that it has a wholly owned subsidiary in California is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction over the foreign corporation. Without any other connections, the subsidiary?s actions and contacts are not attributed to its parent.? But under certain circumstances, there are doctrines under which the subsidiary?s actions and contacts will be attributed to the foreign parent for purposes of minimum contacts analysis.? (Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 538?552.)? These doctrines include: alter ego (ibid.), agency (Rollins Burdick Hunter of So. Calif., Inc. v. Alexander & Alexander Services, Inc. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1, 9; F. Hoffman?La Roche, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 782, 797; Paneno v. Centres For Academic Programmes Abroad Ltd. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1447, 1455?1456, representative services (Dorel Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1277?1279; Aquila, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 556, 577;BBA Aviation PLC v. Superior Court (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 421, 433), and purposeful availment (HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1169).
Application to this Case
General Jurisdiction
It is not entirely clear whether Plaintiff contends that this court may exercise general jurisdiction, as opposed to specific jurisdiction, over NCH.? In any event, there is insufficient evidence to find that the court may exercise general jurisdiction over NCH.? There is no evidence of any activities by it in California.? Though the declaration submitted by NCH does not preclude the possibility of contacts unrelated to Danco or plumbing products that could, if sufficient, give rise to general jurisdiction, the burden of proof is on Plaintiff and it has not provided evidence of such contacts.? There is no suggestion or evidence that NCH uses its website to target California consumers or that such consumers can buy products using that website.
Plaintiff?s sole focus is the link between NCH and Danco, so that Danco?s contacts can be attributed to NCH.? But Plaintiff has not submitted evidence of Danco?s contacts with California to show that the court could exercise general jurisdiction over NCH.
Specific Jurisdiction
There is no evidence of any direct connection between NCH and the product and claims in issue.? Rather, as already noted, Plaintiff?s focus is on the connection between NCH and Danco.? But the evidence supplied is insufficient to find that Danco?s contacts can be treated as NCH?s.? NCH?s website is ambiguous as to Danco?s form as a separate entity, but does not establish that Danco is not in actuality treated as separate from NCH and does not, by itself, show a degree of control that meets the tests for agency, representative services, or purposeful availment ? much less alter ego.
Nor does the fact that in-house counsel for NCH represented Danco significantly add to the weight of Plaintiff?s evidence.? Even assuming NCH pays for such counsel without any contribution by Danco directly or to overhead costs (which cannot be assumed without proof), such representation, alone or in conjunction with the website, does not strongly suggest or even raise the inference of NCH?s control of Danco?s activities.
Specially appearing NCH shall give notice of the ruling.