Case Number: 22STCV22651 Hearing Date: January 23, 2024 Dept: 15
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH
Plaintiff Marque Routh alleges Mark Routh developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos. Defendant Chattem, Inc. filed a motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff asked for jurisdictional discovery, and so the court continued the hearing. Plaintiff and Defendant filed supplemental briefs.
A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over the defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) The court may dismiss without prejudice the complaint in whole, or as to that defendant, when dismissal is made pursuant to Section 418.10. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (h).) “A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) “The Due Process Clause protects an individual’s liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful ‘contacts, ties, or relations.’” (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 471-472.) A state court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a party under circumstances that would offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd., v. Superior Court of California, Solano County (1987) 480 U.S. 102, 113.)
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. (Jayone Foods, Inc. v. Aekyung Industrial Co. Ltd. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 543, 553.) Once facts showing minimum contacts with the forum state are established, the defendant has the burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Ibid.) “The plaintiff must provide specific evidentiary facts, through affidavits and other authenticated documents, sufficient to allow the court to independently conclude whether jurisdiction is appropriate. [Citation.] The plaintiff cannot rely on allegations in an unverified complaint or vague and conclusory assertions of ultimate facts. [Citation.]” (Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 222.)
A defendant is subject to a state’s general jurisdiction if its contacts “are so continuance and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.” (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 127.) A nonresident defendant 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.]” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 446.) This test does not require a “causal relationship between the defendant’s in-state activity and the litigation.” (Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1026.) The “arise out” of standard “asks about causation,” but “relate to” does not. (Ibid.) “[W]hen a corporation has ‘continuously and deliberately exploited [a State’s] market, it must reasonably anticipate being haled into [that State’s] court[s]’ to defend actions ‘based on’ products causing injury there.” (Id. at p. 1027.)
Defendant provided evidence that it is incorporated and headquartered in New Jersey. (Zwarg Decl., ¶ 5.) This evidence establishes California has no general jurisdiction over Defendant.
Regarding specific jurisdiction, Defendant argues it has owned Gold Bond since April 10, 1996 and there are no allegations Routh used Gold Bond or any product from Defendant. (Motion at p. 10.) Defendant is correct that the complaint and first amended complaint do not allege the product from Defendant that supposedly exposed Routh to asbestos.
In opposition, Plaintiff argues Routh used Gold Bond in California from the 1990s into the 2000s, when Defendant owned the product. (Opposition at p. 1.) Plaintiff filed a declaration stating she lived in the same home as her father and she remembers her father using Gold Bond in California from 1985 until 2011. (Eyerly Decl., Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 5-6.)
Defendant says it has been trying to take Plaintiff’s deposition since November, but Plaintiff refused to provide dates. Defendant says it needs to take Plaintiff’s deposition because her declaration conflicts with the pleadings. However, Defendant never noticed Plaintiff’s deposition. A party has no obligation to appear for a deposition unless the party has been served with a deposition notice. And even if Defendant did serve a deposition notice, Defendant did not file a motion to compel the deposition, even though it had months to do so.
Defendant says Plaintiff’s supplemental opposition was late because it was filed at 5:28 p.m. instead of by 5:00 p.m. Defendant did not show any prejudice caused by the missing 28 minutes.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s declaration is based on speculation. That is not correct. The declaration she remembers seeing her father using God Bond in the home they shared. That is not based on speculation but her percipient knowledge.
Defendant states there is no connection between Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s conduct in California. Plaintiff has shown that her father purchased and used Gold Bond in California during the time Defendant owned Gold Bond. Her claims arise out of Defendant’s sales of Gold Bond in California.
Defendant did not show the exercise of jurisdiction is unreasonable.
The motion to quash is DENIED.
The moving parties are to give notice.