Safco Products v. Denson International

Filed 4/10/06 Safco Products v. Denson International CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

This is an appeal from an order quashing service of summons. A Hong Kong corporation has no personnel or offices in the United States and conducts no advertising or solicitation. It accepts email and fax purchase orders for products it makes and sells in China, although with knowledge that buyers will ship them to the United States. About 90 percent of its business consists of making office products which it sells in China to a Minnesota company; about 5 percent consists of making automotive and airline parts which it sells in China to three California companies. An employee once dropped in unannounced on one California buyer for 15 minutes to discuss sales and a product quality dispute. The Hong Kong corporation bought worldwide products liability insurance through a San Francisco broker.

Does a California court have personal jurisdiction over a Hong Kong corporation in a product liability case arising from a defective piece of office equipment sold to the Minnesota buyer in China, which was re-sold to a California public entity whose employee was injured by it in California? We conclude it does not.

BACKGROUND

A. Pleadings.

Tamra Williams-Jordan sued Safco Products Company (Safco) and others, alleging that Safco sold her employer (the Sacramento County Superior Court) a footrest which failed on October 5, 2001, causing her personal injuries.

Safco answered and cross-complained for indemnity against Denson International, Limited (Denson), claiming Denson made the allegedly defective footrest which injured Williams-Jordan. Safco served Denson in Hong Kong.

B. Motion to Quash.

Denson moved to quash based on lack of personal jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) In support Denson filed a declaration of Vincent To Chiu Mong, who declared he was Denson's Products and Operations Manager” and had personal knowledge of its business dealings, as follows:

Denson is a Hong Kong corporation and made the footrest in a Chinese factory. About 90 percent of Denson's business involves making office furniture which it sells to Safco. It has no offices, employees or property in California and it conducts no advertising in the United States. Safco employees come to China to arrange sales orders. Reordering is done by fax from Safco's headquarters in Minnesota to Denson in Hong Kong. Denson â€