Beierschmitt

I. BACKGROUND

In February 2020, plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging Karl, a California resident, was exposed to asbestos soldering blocks sold by Grobet and others while working as a dental specialist and dental supply salesperson “from 1955 through the 1970s” in California and other “various locations.” As pertinent to Grobet, plaintiffs asserted causes of action for negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, strict liability in tort, and loss of consortium.

1 Karl died during the pendency of this appeal, and his successor in interest was substituted as an appellant. For simplicity’s sake, we refer to plaintiffs, including Karl’s successor in interest, collectively as “plaintiffs.” 2 Except where otherwise indicated, we refer to Grobet and Dixon interchangeably.

2 Grobet moved to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.3 Grobet argued it was not subject to general jurisdiction in California because it is not incorporated in this state and does not maintain its principal place of business here. As to specific jurisdiction, Grobet contested only one of the elements necessary to show specific jurisdiction exists: the company argued plaintiffs could…