Case Name: Stirling Andrew Sterling, et al. v. Armstrong International, Inc., et al.
Case No.: 16-CV-296578

This personal injury action arises from plaintiff Stirling Andrew Sterling’s alleged exposure to asbestos as a result of handling defendants’ products from the early 1950s to 1988. Mr. Sterling now suffers from malignant pleural mesothelioma as a result of this exposure.

Currently before the Court is defendant Hollingsworth & Vose Company’s (“H&V”) motion to quash service of the summons and complaint. H&V, which is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Massachusetts, sold gasket paper to defendant Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company, whose gaskets allegedly injured plaintiff.

I. Legal Standard

California courts may assume jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction fair. (See Goehring v. Superior Court (Bernier) (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 894, 903; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10 [California courts “may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States”].) When a defendant believes that it lacks sufficient contacts with California to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction, the defendant may move to quash service of summons pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10. Upon such a motion, the plaintiff has the initial burden to produce evidence warranting the exercise of either general or special jurisdiction over the defendant, and the burden then shifts to the defendant to show that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable or unfair. (See Goehring, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 903.)

To satisfy its initial burden, “[t]he plaintiff must do more than merely allege jurisdictional facts,” but instead “must provide affidavits and other authenticated documents in order to demonstrate competent evidence of jurisdictional facts.” (In re Auto. Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110.) If there is a conflict in the parties’ evidence, then the court must weigh the evidence and resolve the conflict, and its findings will not be disturbed on appeal if there is substantial evidence supporting its conclusions. (See Goehring, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 903.)

II. Analysis

Plaintiffs contend that the Court has specific personal jurisdiction over H&V. The question of whether a court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant involves examining (1) whether the defendant has purposefully directed its activities at the forum state; (2) whether the plaintiff’s claims arise out of or are related to these forum-directed activities; and (3) whether the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable and does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court (Anderson) (Cal. 2016) 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 649.) A plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts to support the first two factors, which establish the requisite minimum contacts with the forum state; the burden then shifts to the defendant to show that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable under the third factor. (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs introduce evidence that in 1982, H&V registered with the State of California as a foreign corporation to sell its air filter products into the state. It also opened a sales office in California and employed a California salesperson to sell these products. It operated this office until 2009, when the salesperson left the company and was not replaced. After the salesperson’s departure, H&V continued to sell its products in California and has never allowed its California registration to expire. H&V admits that its sales in California are nearly seven percent of its total US sales (for 2011-2015). H&V has answered asbestos-related complaints in at least four California actions during the last five years.

H&V does not dispute these facts, but introduces evidence that its sales of paper products to Victor, specifically, took place outside California, and Victor incorporated the paper into products that were sold in various locations. H&V did not manufacture its products in California, did not ship them to California, had no customers for this specific product in California, did not advertise or market the product in California, and had no role in Victor’s sales or marketing of its gaskets.

This evidence distinguishes the circumstances here from those in Bristol-Myers, upon which plaintiffs primarily rely. Bristol-Myers explained that the relatedness requirement for specific jurisdiction is determined under the “substantial connection” test, which is satisfied if there is a substantial nexus or connection between the defendant’s forum activities and the plaintiff’s claim. (At p. 650.) Under this test, the intensity of forum contacts and the connection of the claim to those contacts are inversely related: the more wide-ranging the contacts, the more readily is shown a connection between the contacts and the claim. (Ibid.) Thus, a claim need not arise directly from the defendant’s forum contacts, or have been caused by them, to be sufficiently related to the contacts to support the exercise of specific jurisdiction. (Ibid.) Indeed, only when the operative facts of the controversy are not related to the defendant’s contact with the state can it be said that the case of action does not arise from the contact. (Ibid.)

In Bristol-Myers, specific personal jurisdiction was established where a drug manufacturer marketed and advertised the product at issue in California, employed sales representatives here and contracted with a California-based distributor, operated research facilities in the state, and even had an office in the state capital to lobby the state on the company’s behalf. (At p. 651.) While there was no claim that the drug at issue was itself designed and developed in California, the defendant’s nationwide marketing and distribution efforts, which resulted in substantial sales of the drug at issue in California, coupled with these other wide-ranging California connections, supported jurisdiction. (Id. at pp. 653-654.)

Here, H&V had a single California sales office that focused on selling a different product than the one at issue. While these activities were purposefully directed towards California, they are not related to the allegedly asbestos-containing product at issue in this action. H&V did not market its gasket paper to California consumers as it did with its air filters, but merely sold this product into the stream of commerce, which is inadequate to establish personal jurisdiction standing alone. (See Dow Chemical Canada ULC v. Superior Court (Fandino) (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 170, 174 [“merely depositing goods in the stream of commerce, with knowledge that some will end up in a finished product manufactured by another and sold in the forum state” does not give rise to personal jurisdiction]; cf. Cassiar Min. Corp. v. Superior Court (Anderson) (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 550, 555 [jurisdiction existed where “Cassiar sold thousands of tons of raw asbestos fibers directly to California locations for some 38 years”].) The mere fact that H&V registered to do business in California does not support the exercise of jurisdiction in a case unrelated to that business. (See DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court (Papworth) (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1080, 1095 [designation of an agent for service of process and qualification to do business in California alone are insufficient to permit jurisdiction except for lawsuits arising out of the foreign corporation’s business conducted in the state].) In sum, H&V’s limited activities in California concerning its air filters do not support personal jurisdiction in this action involving an unrelated product. (See BenQ America Corp. v. Forward Electronics Co., Ltd. (N.D. Cal., Dec. 15, 2005, No. C 05-2409 PJH) 2005 WL 3445629, at *7 [sale of unrelated products to a single, unrelated California customer did not support specific personal jurisdiction].)

While the parties both discuss the resolution of the jurisdictional issue in other California asbestos cases involving H&V, these unpublished trial court opinions do not bind this Court, and any evidence that was before those trial courts but was not presented in connection with the present motion obviously may not be considered. Likewise, the fact that H&V has answered complaints in other California asbestos actions is not relevant to the Court’s analysis in this case. (See Dow Chemical Co. v. Calderon (9th Cir. 2005) 422 F.3d 827, 829 [defendants did not consent to personal jurisdiction by appearing in a similar action in the past].)

Finally, plaintiffs seek a continuance to conduct additional jurisdictional discovery in the event the Court finds they have not met their burden, which the Court may permit in its discretion. (See Goehring v. Superior Court (Bernier) (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 894, 911 [“A plaintiff is generally entitled to conduct discovery with regard to a jurisdictional issue before a court rules on a motion to quash.”].) Here, plaintiffs’ counsel’s prior firm obtained jurisdictional discovery from H&V in 2014 in another action. (See Decl. of Lisa M. Barley ISO Opp., ¶ 3.) Consequently, it would appear unlikely that additional evidence of H&V’s direct California contacts exists. However, there is no indication that the prior action involved products sold to Victor, specifically. There may be evidence that H&V directed these sales to California, and the Court deems it appropriate to allow a brief continuance so that plaintiffs may themselves conduct jurisdictional discovery tailored to this action.

The motion to quash is therefore CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 16, 2016. Plaintiffs may conduct discovery with respect to the single issue of the Court’s personal jurisdiction over H&V. Plaintiffs shall file any supplemental opposition papers, and H&V shall file any supplemental reply papers, by the deadlines provided by the Code of Civil Procedure in light of the continued hearing date.