HARRY HERBERT SURTEES VS 3M COMPANY, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 23STCV10737 Hearing Date: July 13, 2023 Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS TO QUASH

Plaintiff Harry Surtees filed this action alleging he was exposed to asbestos in talc supplied by Defendant Vanderbilt Mineral, LLC, Inc. Defendant filed a motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.

A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. (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.” (Saimler 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.)

Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC provided evidence that it is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Connecticut (Stewart Decl., 2), and therefore it is not a resident of California and not subject to its general jurisdiction.

Defendant argues it is not subject to California’s specific jurisdiction unless Plaintiffs can prove Karen McGee was exposed to asbestos in a product in California that contained Defendant’s talc. (Motion at p. 4.) Defendant argues the complaint does not allege the specific products at issue. (Ibid.) Defendant does not contend that it has not sold or shipped talc to California. It does not contend that it has not continuously and deliberately exploited California’s market.

Defendant is correct that the complaint provides no information about the specific products at issue. Only in his opposition does Plaintiff identify the products – unspecified DAP construction and caulk products. (Opposition at p. 2.) Plaintiff argues Defendant assumed the liability of R.T. Vanderbilt Company, which had a talc mine and sales office in California. (Opposition at pp. 2-3; Eyerly Decl., Ex. B at pp. 39-40; Ex. E at p. 1430.) According to Plaintiff, the talc contained asbestos. (Eyerly Decl., Ex. C at p. 126.) R.T. Vanderbilt Company was registered with the California Secretary of State. (Eyerly Decl., Ex. F.) R.T. Vanderbilt Company supplied talc to DAP. (Eyerly Decl., Ex. G at pp. 162-163.

Vanderbilt Minerals acknowledges that it is the successor to R.T. Vanderbilt Company. (Reply at p. 2.) Thus, Plaintiff has established that Defendant’s predecessor R.T. Vanderbilt Company continuously and deliberately exploited California’s market by having a mine and sales office in California.

Plaintiff requests jurisdictional discovery to obtain evidence that Defendant’s talc was in the DAP products that Plaintiff used. The motion is CONTINUED to October 25, 2023 at 9 a.m. for jurisdictional discovery on that issue. Plaintiff may file a supplemental opposition and Defendant may file a supplemental reply on regular notice.

The moving party is to give notice.