argument is requested, it will be heard at 2:00 pm on Monday, April 2, 2018 in this department.

Specially appearing Defendants Volvo Group North America, LLC’s (collectively “VGNA”) Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is GRANTED. C.C.P., sec. 418.10(a) (1)

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by with C.R.C., Rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 1.06(D). Local Rules for the Sacramento Superior Court are available on the Court’s website at Counsel for moving party is ordered to notify opposing party immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event opposing party appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

This motion was originally calendared for hearing on Sept. 18, 2017, but has been continued five times to permit discovery on the jurisdictional issue only. The opposition has now been timely filed.

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed March 30, 2017 sets forth two causes of action against VGNA: the 1st for strict product liability and the 2 nd for negligent product liability, in connection with injuries to plaintiff resulting from a Dec. 16, 2016 motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff’s was driving a Volvo Diesel Tractor Truck VNL (the subject vehicle) when another driver, Teila Douglas, lost control of her vehicle, which spun out of control. The accident occurred in City of Columbus, Nebraska. Plaintiff suffered serious personal injuries, including an arm amputation. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the subject tractor was designed, manufactured, tested, and distributed in a defective and dangerous condition.

Volvo Group North America, LLC (“VGNA”) is a manufacturer of commercial heavy

duty truck tractors. (Reavis Dec. ¶ 3.) It is a limited liability company incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Greensboro, North California, VGNA has no business operations in the State of California It has no offices or facilities in California. It does not own or lease any property in the State of California. VGNA has several thousand employees throughout the United States, of which only six reside in California. (Reavis Dec. ¶ 4.)

Dealers of Volvo trucks in California are independently owned and operated franchised dealers, and are not affiliated with VGNA. (Reavis Dec. ¶ 6.) There are approximately 297 authorized dealer locations across the United States, and of those, there are only six authorized dealers operating 11 locations in California. None of VGNA’s sales actually take place in California. (Reavis Dec. ¶ 7.) VGNA sells only to authorized dealers and two national fleets, and these sales take place in Virginia and Florida.

The subject vehicle was designed in Greensboro, North Carolina, assembled in Dublin, Virginia, and any testing of the vehicle would have occurred at one or both of those places. (Reavis Dec. ¶ 8.) VGNA sold the subject vehicle to its independently owned and operated dealer, Mountain West Truck Center, located in South Lake City, Utah, (Reavis Dec. ¶ 9.) The vehicle was shipped from Virginia on February 24, 2014. Mountain West Truck Center subsequently sold the subject vehicle to Cool Express, Inc., a trucking company in Reno, Nevada… The vehicle has a Nevada license plate. There is no record of the subject vehicle ever having been owned by or sold to any person or entity in California.

A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444; 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.) The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of the State to impose jurisdiction over a nonresident. State courts may exercise personal jurisdiction only if “minimum contacts” exist between the defendant and the forum state. (World- Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 291.)

General Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. A nonresident defendant may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if his or her contacts in the forum state are “substantial . . . continuous and systematic.” In such a case, it is not necessary that the specific cause of action alleged be connected with the defendant’s business relationship to the forum. (Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operation, S.A. v. Brown (2011) 564 U.S. 915)

Plaintiff concedes (Oppo. 5:3-11) and the Court concurs, that it does not have general jurisdiction over VGNA, which is incorporated in Delaware, has its principal place of business in North Carolina, has no offices or facilities in California. VGNA dealers are independently owned and operated. None of VGNA’s sales actually take place in California. Therefore the foreign corporation’s in-forum contacts cannot be said to so “continuous and systematic” as to render it essentially “at home” in the forum State. ( Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117.)

Specific Jurisdiction

Specific jurisdiction is very different. In order for a state court to exercise specific jurisdiction, the suit must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum. (Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (2017) ___U.S.___ ,137 S.Ct. 1773, 1780, 198 L.Ed.2d 395, 403.) In contrast to general, all-purpose jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction. (Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011) 564 U.S. 915, 919.)

Thus, for a nonresident corporation to be subject to specific jurisdiction in California, the nonresident corporation must have (1) purposefully established contacts with the forum State; (2) the plaintiffs’ cause of action must “arise out of or be “related to” the defendant’s contacts with the forum State; and (3) the forum’s exercise of personal jurisdiction in the particular case comports with “fair play and substantial justice.” See generally Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 477-78 (1985); Daimler AG, 134 S. Ct. 746, 754; World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1781-82 (2017).

Moving party asserts that as the plaintiff’s allegations against VGNA do not arise from any activity by VGNA in California and the accident did not occur here, specific jurisdiction does not apply.

The accident that forms the basis of plaintiff’s complaint occurred in Columbus, County of Platte, Nebraska. (Complaint, ¶ 15.) The subject vehicle involved in the incident was designed in Greensboro, North Carolina, assembled in Dublin, Virginia, and any testing would have been done at one or both of those places. (Reavis Decl., ¶ 8.) VGNA sold the subject vehicle to an independently owned and operated dealer, Mount West Truck Center, which is located in South Lake City, Utah. (Id. at 19.) Mountain West Truck Center sold the subject vehicle to Cool Express, Inc. a trucking company in Reno, Nevada, and the vehicle was registered in Nevada. (Id.; Complaint at ¶ ¶ 4, 15.) There is no record of the subject vehicle ever having been owned by or sold to any person or entity in California. (Reavis Decl., ¶ 9.)

Moving party asserts that the subject incident has nothing to do with VGNA’s contacts with California, and as a result this Court cannot assert specific personal jurisdiction over VGNA. (Bristol-Myers, 137 S. Ct. at 1781-1782.)

Plaintiff concedes this point in the opposition, which is fatal to his specific jurisdiction argument: “Plaintiff does not contend that the claim arises out of VGNA’s California contacts as the injury did not occur in California and the product was not sold here.” (O pp. 9: 21-22.)

Plaintiff’s opposition describes VGNA’s contact with California that have nothing to do with the subject accident, such as “marketing”, “monitoring”, as these general contacts are insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction, as the underlying controversy alleged in the complaint does not “arise out of” and is not “related to” the defendant’s contacts with the forum State.

When no such connection exists, specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant’s unconnected activities in the State. (Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court supra, [137 S.Ct. 1773, 1776.)

Plaintiff also asserts the stream of commerce theory in opposition to confer specific jurisdiction over VGNA in California. However, in each of the “stream of commerce” or “commercial actuality” cases cited by plaintiff, the plaintiff was injured in the forum State, and the nonresident company put the product into the stream of commerce or had an economic relationship with the forum State. Again, here, the plaintiff was injured in Nebraska, not California and the vehicle was not designed or manufactured in California, nor was it sold to or owned by anyone in California and was registered in Nevada. The mere “unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State. ( World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 298 [100 S.Ct. 559, 567, 62 L.Ed.2d 490, 502].)

Plaintiff’s California residency has no bearing on this court’s personal jurisdiction over the defendant in California. The “primary concern” in assessing personal jurisdiction is “the burden on the defendant.” (Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1776.)

Reasonable / Comport with Fair Play and Substantial Justice

As plaintiff has failed to show that minimum contacts exist, the Court does not reach the evaluation of whether personal jurisdiction would be “reasonable” and “comport with fair play and substantial justice.

The motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction over specially appearing Defendants Volvo Group North America, LLC’s (“VGNA”) is granted.

The related Application of Defendants Volvo Group North America, LLC’s (“VGNA”) to File Under Seal Exhibits 3, 4 and 7 in support of plaintiff’s opposition is unopposed and is GRANTED.

Exhibits (No. 3) the Summary of VGNA tractors delivered to California 2014-2015; (No.

4) the Summary of VGNA tractors sold to California Dealers between 2011 and 2016; and (No. 7) the Volvo Dealer Sales and Service Agreement, to plaintiffs opposition to VGNA’s motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, confidential contain VGNA’s confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive information, and should be filed under seal and kept confidential to prevent the documents from being accessed and disseminated by the public and/or media.

However, this Court does not retain hard copy files, nor will it download the flash drive submitted concurrently therewith. Court shall make arrangements with the Clerk in Dept. 53 to pick up the flash drive or it will be discarded.

The Clerk is instructed to file the Compendium of Confidential Exhibits in Support of Opposition to Motion to Quash Service of Summons under seal.

The prevailing party shall prepare a formal order and Judgment for the Court’s signature.