Products Liability Law Reporter

A California appellate court held that a trial court had erred in granting a motion to quash filed by Avon Products, Inc., in a suit alleging liability for a long-term talc user’s mesothelioma.

California resident Patricia Schmitz used Avon’s perfumed talc powder products for approximately 20 years. Schmitz, a teacher who purchased her Avon products through Avon representatives in her parent community, subsequently developed mesothelioma.

She sued Avon Products, Inc., alleging claims for strict liability, negligence, and fraud. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s products had contained asbestos and led to her mesothelioma. The defense moved to quash service of the summons based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court granted the motion, holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the defendant had sold and Schmitz had used talc products containing asbestos in California.

Reversing, the appellate court noted that specific jurisdiction allows a court to adjudicate a dispute relating to a defendant’s contact with a forum. Citing case law, the court added that specific jurisdiction exists where a defendant has purposefully availed itself of a forum’s benefits, the controversy relates to or arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum, and the exercise of jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff was required to prove the defendant’s product defect at the jurisdictional phase of the litigation. The jurisdictional phase focuses not on whether a defendant is liable, the court said, but whether the defendant has created minimum contacts with the forum such that maintaining a lawsuit there does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

The court found that the defendant has not disputed that its sale of its talc powder products through its direct sales representatives to Schmitz in California are contacts that the company created with the state. Thus, the court concluded that there is a sufficient affiliation between the state of California and the plaintiff’s lawsuit.

Consequently, the court held that the trial court’s ruling was improper and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover her costs.

Citation: Bader v. Avon Prods., Inc., 2020 WL 5793404 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2020).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ members Joseph D. Satterley, Denyse F. Clancy, and Michael T. Stewart, all of Oakland, Calif.