Bader v. Avon Products, 55 Cal.App.5th 186

Background:

Plaintiff Susan Bader (substituted for Patricia Schmitz) alleges Schmitz used Avon perfumed talc powders from ~1980–2000 in Alameda, CA and developed mesothelioma from asbestos-contaminated talc.
Schmitz was introduced to Avon products via Avon representatives (catalogs left in her school) and ordered products roughly twice a year; Avon sells via a direct-sales representative model.
Avon moved to quash service for lack of specific personal jurisdiction, arguing Bader had to prove at the jurisdictional stage that the specific talc Schmitz used contained asbestos (the alleged defect), citing Bristol-Myers.
The trial court granted the motion to quash and awarded prevailing-party costs to Avon, finding Bader failed to show asbestos in Avon products sold/used in California or that Avon injected the specific products into the California market.
The Court of Appeal reversed: it held a plaintiff need not prove the product defect (asbestos) at the jurisdictional phase and that Bader met the relatedness prong based on Avon’s direct sales to Schmitz in California; it also reversed the costs award.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff must prove the product defect (that Avon talc contained asbestos) at the jurisdictional stage	Bader: No—jurisdictional inquiry requires showing the suit relates to forum contacts, not proving liability or defect	Avon: Yes—under Bristol-Myers, plaintiff must show the specific talc at issue was contaminated to connect the claim to forum contacts	Held: No. The court rejected a requirement to prove defect at the motion-to-quash stage; jurisdictional inquiry may treat the product as "allegedly defective."
Whether Bader’s claims "relate to or arise out of" Avon’s contacts with California (relatedness prong)	Bader: Direct sales by Avon representatives to Schmitz in California create the requisite affiliation between forum and controversy	Avon: General/national sales are insufficient; plaintiff must trace allegedly defective units into California	Held: Yes. Uncontroverted evidence of Avon’s direct sales model and Schmitz’s purchases/usage in California satisfied relatedness.
Whether the trial court properly limited jurisdictional discovery	Bader: Requested discovery on product formulas, talc sources, testing, and supplier info to prove contamination	Avon: Proposed discovery was overbroad and beyond the court-ordered scope	Held: Not decided on the merits—court reversed on the jurisdictional error and did not resolve the discovery dispute.
Whether Avon was entitled to prevailing-party costs after the motion to quash	Bader: Costs award improper if quash order reversed	Avon: Trial court properly awarded costs as prevailing party	Held: Costs award reversed as moot upon reversal of the quash order.

Key Cases Cited

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (U.S. 2017) (rejects California's "sliding scale" approach; specific jurisdiction requires connection between forum and specific claims)
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts and fair play due process standard for personal jurisdiction)
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (defendant may be haled into forum where its allegedly defective product caused injury if defendant availed itself of that forum's market)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (U.S. 2011) (distinguishes general and specific jurisdiction; mere in-state sales do not support jurisdiction for unrelated claims)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (fair warning and foreseeability in purposeful availment analysis)
Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., 14 Cal.4th 434 (Cal. 1996) (adopted "substantial connection" test for relatedness; earlier articulated "sliding scale" approach)
Farina v. SAVWCL III, LLC, 50 Cal.App.5th 286 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (plaintiff bears burden to prove jurisdictional facts by preponderance)