87 Cal.App.5th 964
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Bus crash on Feb. 22, 2020 in San Diego county injured Zumaeta and killed Cynthia; plaintiffs sued multiple defendants including Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation (FCCC) for product liability relating to the bus chassis.
- FCCC (Delaware corp., principal place of business in South Carolina) moved to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction, submitting a declaration that the subject chassis was assembled in South Carolina and sold in 2013 to Champion Bus in Michigan; FCCC has no offices in California and did not design/assemble/sell the specific chassis in California.
- Plaintiffs opposed with website printouts (FCCC market-share/service‑network language and Velocity Truck Centers listings showing some FCCC chassis models at California dealer locations) but provided no targeted jurisdictional discovery or testimony linking the specific 2014 S2 chassis to California sales/servicing.
- Plaintiffs sought a 180‑day continuance to conduct jurisdictional discovery; the trial court denied the continuance, overruled objections to FCCC’s declarant, and granted the motion to quash, dismissing FCCC.
- On appeal, the court affirmed: it found no abuse of discretion in denying discovery or in admitting the declaration, and held plaintiffs failed to establish general or specific jurisdiction over FCCC because their evidence did not show the claims "arose out of or related to" FCCC’s California contacts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuance for jurisdictional discovery | Needed more time to obtain evidence of FCCC’s California contacts | Plaintiffs delayed, failed to identify specific jurisdictional discovery and did not propound targeted discovery | Denial affirmed; no abuse of discretion (plaintiffs failed to show discovery likely to produce jurisdictional facts) |
| Admissibility of Rostenbach declaration | Lacked personal knowledge/foundation | Declarant had long employment, reviewed company records and had knowledge of operations | Overruled; declaration provided adequate foundation and was admissible |
| General jurisdiction | FCCC’s market share, dealers, and service centers make it "at home" in California | FCCC is incorporated in DE, PPB in SC, no CA offices; contacts insufficient to be "at home" | No general jurisdiction; plaintiffs failed to show FCCC is essentially at home in California |
| Specific jurisdiction — purposeful availment | FCCC markets chassis and maintains service network in CA, thus purposefully availed itself | The subject chassis was assembled/sold outside CA; FCCC did not target CA sales of that chassis | Court assumed (for analysis) purposeful availment arguable but did not rest decision on it; plaintiffs’ showing was sparse |
| Specific jurisdiction — claims "arise out of or relate to" CA contacts | The accident occurred in CA and FCCC serves CA market, so claim relates to FCCC’s CA activities | No evidence FCCC sold/marketed/serviced the specific S2 chassis in CA or brought that chassis into CA | Held against plaintiffs: failed to prove the claims arose out of or related to FCCC’s California contacts; motion to quash affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 141 S.Ct. 1017 (2021) (specific-jurisdiction framework: serving a market in a state and an in‑state injury to a resident can support jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction requires being "essentially at home" in the forum)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017) (specific-jurisdiction requires an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (purposeful availment and foreseeability principles in products cases)
- Secrest Mach. Corp. v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.3d 664 (1983) (manufacturer purposefully avails by actions designed to sell product for use in California)
- Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., 14 Cal.4th 434 (1996) (plaintiff bears initial burden to submit competent evidence of minimum contacts)
- Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 262 (2002) (standards of review and personal jurisdiction analysis in California)