## Facts

- Patricia Schmitz, a California resident, used Avon perfumed talc powder products for about 20 years.
- The estate alleged the talc products were contaminated with asbestos and caused Schmitz’s mesothelioma.
- Schmitz first encountered Avon products in California (via an Avon catalog left at her workplace) and thereafter ordered talc products through Avon representatives in California.
- Avon distributed products through a direct-sales model using representatives who sold directly to consumers, including in California.
- The estate sued Avon for strict products liability, negligence, and fraud based on the alleged asbestos contamination of talc products sold and used in California.

## Issues

1. Whether the estate satisfied the “arise out of or relate to” (relatedness) prong of California specific personal jurisdiction based on Avon’s California sales of the allegedly injurious talc products.
2. Whether, at the motion-to-quash stage, the plaintiff must prove the talc products sold and used in California were actually defective (contained asbestos) to establish relatedness.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the order granting Avon’s motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court held the estate met its burden on the relatedness prong by showing Avon sold the allegedly defective talc products to Schmitz in California and the claims were based on injuries allegedly caused by those sales and use in California.
- The court held the trial court erred by effectively requiring proof of product defect (asbestos contamination) at the jurisdictional stage.
- Because Avon did not dispute purposeful availment or argue that exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable, specific personal jurisdiction was established once relatedness was shown.
- The Court of Appeal also reversed the prevailing-party costs award to Avon and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- California specific personal jurisdiction requires: (1) purposeful availment, (2) relatedness (the claim arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum contacts), and (3) reasonableness.
- For relatedness in a product-injury case, evidence that the defendant sold the allegedly injurious product into the forum and the plaintiff’s claims are based on injuries allegedly caused by that forum sale and use can satisfy the “arise out of or relate to” requirement.
- At the jurisdictional stage, a plaintiff need not prove the merits of the alleged defect; requiring proof that the product was in fact defective improperly collapses jurisdiction into a merits determination.

## Conclusion

The court held that California courts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a manufacturer where the plaintiff presented evidence of in-forum sales of the allegedly defective product to the decedent and alleged injury from in-forum use, without requiring proof of the defect at the motion-to-quash stage.


Bader v. Avon Prods., Inc., 55 Cal. App. 5th 186, 269 Cal. Rptr. 3d 318 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)