Rossa v. Blue Bird Body Co.

DANIEL ROSSA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent.

A160544

California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division

June 29, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 18CIV05767

STEWART, J.

Plaintiff Daniel Rossa brought this products liability lawsuit for injuries he sustained in April 2018 when the electrical retracting steps of a library bookmobile owned and operated by his employer, the County of San Mateo, malfunctioned and crushed his foot, resulting in much of it having to be amputated. One of the defendants is Respondent Blue Bird Body Company (Blue Bird), an out-of-state company that manufactured the vehicle, which another out-of-state company purchased and then converted from its original configuration as a bus into a bookmobile. Blue Bird moved to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the trial court granted the motion. Rossa now appeals, contending that California may exercise specific jurisdiction over Blue Bird given the extent of its business dealings in this state with respect to the subject matter of this lawsuit.

We agree the court erred in granting the motion and conclude the matter must be remanded for further proceedings regarding Blue Bird's in-forum activities and amenability to suit in California.

BACKGROUND

A. The Motion to Quash

Blue Bird's motion to quash, filed on October 4, 2019, was supported by a declaration from an employee, Milo Ringe III who is Blue Bird's Director of Government Specifications and Testing.

According to Ringe's declaration, Blue Bird is a company that manufactures, assembles and sells buses and has been doing business since 1927. It is incorporated in Georgia and has its principal place of business there. Blue Bird manufactured the bus involved in this case in Georgia, and sold it to a company located in Ohio called OBS, Inc., which then converted the bus into a bookmobile.^[1]

Ringe stated that “[a]ll of Blue Bird's activity that was involved in regard to the design, manufacture, assembly and sale of the... bus took place in Georgia.” He also stated that “[n]one of Blue Bird's conduct in regard to the subject bus took place in California.”

Ringe acknowledged that Blue Bird “sells and delivers its buses to authorized dealers such as OBS, Inc.” but stated that “[o]nce those buses are sold to a dealer [Blue Bird] has no control over the modifications to those vehicles or where any vehicles are shipped, distributed, sold or re-sold.”

With one limited exception, Ringe's declaration was silent as to whether, and to what extent, Blue Bird carries on business in California. His sole reference to that subject was an assertion (which he would later acknowledge was inaccurate) that the company “does not have any employees or offices in California.”

Instead of addressing Blue Bird's commercial presence in (or absence from) California, Ringe instead asserted only that the company “has never sold or advertised, and currently does not sell or advertise, any bookmobiles in California.” (Italics added.) That fact, of course, was beside the point because Blue Bird is in the school bus business, not the bookmobile business. As Ringe himself stated, Blue Bird “does not design manufacture or sell bookmobiles.”

Plaintiff's counsel filed a written opposition to the motion that asserted there was evidence of Blue Bird's “purposeful contacts with California and causal relation” to Rossa's injuries. It argued that Blue Bird had carried on internet advertising, had California-based dealerships and service centers, and also had been involved with this very bookmobile after the vehicle had been delivered to the County of San Mateo, as reflected in some email correspondence. In the alternative, plaintiff requested a 90-day continuance to conduct further discovery into the jurisdictional issue.

Plaintiff's counsel filed a supporting declaration attaching two sets of materials: (a) a meet and confer letter he had sent to defense counsel, with enclosures he stated were materials he had obtained from Blue Bird's website, and (b) emails described as having been “received from the County of San Mateo in the ordinary course of business.”

The materials from Blue Bird's website included promotional materials highlighting the quality of the company's buses and technical support network, the volume of its business and its nationwide scope. For example, one page, discussing the “Quality & Durability” of its buses advertised that “At Blue Bird, quality and durability have always been of paramount importance. That is why over 180, 000 of the buses that we've manufactured since our founding in 1927 are still on the road. We pay attention to the details that deliver performance continually exploring how a product can be improved.” (Italics added.)

Another page, captioned “Serviceability, ” advertised the ease of performing maintenance and repairs on Blue Bird vehicles, touting the company's “superior technical training programs, ” “factory trained technicians, ” and its “expansive dealer & service network.” It said the company “lead[s] the school bus industry in both quantity and quality of technical training offered to our customers, ” and that “over 335 dealerships and affiliated vehicle service centers are available throughout North America.”

Still another page, captioned “Service and Parts, ” encouraged customers to “access important documents online” (including a driver's handbook, service manual and other technical references), advertised the company's “extensive selection of top-quality parts” and “well-stocked inventory, ” and encouraged customers to “[c]ontact your local Blue Bird dealer to get the parts you need, when you need them” from the company's “centrally located parts distribution center [that] boasts 1.3 million cubic feet of clean, orderly, highly automated space with over 20, 000 part numbers to quickly fulfill your part needs.”

At the very top of that page, captioned under the heading, “Get Service When You Need It, ” the company advertised the following: “At Blue Bird, we recognize that your new bus purchase is just one part of the equation. The North American Blue Bird Dealer Network, backed by the knowledgeable Blue Birds Parts and Service Team, has you covered for the life of your bus. The local parts, service, warranty, and genuine school bus expertise you need are readily available at hundreds of North American full-line dealers and dealer-authorized service centers.” (Italics added.) Included was a map depicting the company's network of dealers and authorized service centers all across North America, including throughout California:

(Image Omitted)

Another page, from the “Dealer/Service Center Locator” portion of the company's website, reflected the results of a search conducted within 200 miles of Sacramento County, depicting at least 10 locations in that area of California alone:

(Image Omitted)

The website also actively solicited business. It allowed visitors to “request a quote, ” encouraged them to join the company's mailing list to receive “the latest updates and promotions, ” and included links to a variety of other topics, including product information, information about financing and “purchasing a bus, ” “find[ing] a service center, ” warranty information, “FAQs, ” and “do[ing] business with Blue Bird.”

In addition to these website materials, the ten pages of email correspondence attached to the declaration of plaintiff's counsel included materials that appear to reflect discussions between San Mateo County personnel and various outside service technicians about warranty repairs made to the bookmobile in the December 2011/January 2012 timeframe. Several of these communications refer to Blue Bird's involvement, both from outside of California and within the state.^[2]

Blue Bird filed written objections to the declaration of plaintiff's counsel and its attachments, on numerous grounds.

Ringe filed a supplemental declaration with Blue Bird's reply papers. He acknowledged that “there are service centers and dealers authorized by Blue Bird in many states, including California.” However, he asserted they “are separate and independent companies, ” and reiterated, as previously stated, that “Blue Bird does not have any facilities in California.” Ringe also made a retraction: he acknowledged that an email included with the opposition papers “indicated someone spoke to ‘John Vaugh' and referred to him as a ‘Blue Bird Ca rep.,' ” and corrected his prior statement that Blue Bird does not have any employees located in California. Ringe stated that Blue Bird has three employees in California, including one named John Vaughn.

The matter proceeded to a hearing on November 22, 2019, and the trial court continued it for three months, until February 20, 2020, to enable plaintiff to conduct jurisdictional discovery.

Plaintiff got nowhere. After completing the deposition of a county fact witness that had been previously scheduled and then got delayed for reasons beyond plaintiff's control plaintiff's counsel (on December 17) asked defense counsel to stipulate to a 30-day continuance of the motion to quash hearing and to propose a suitable pre-hearing briefing schedule to allow for the submission of additional evidence, but defense counsel did not respond. Plaintiff's counsel then, in early January 2020, propounded written discovery requests on Blue Bird aimed at disclosing the extent of Blue Bird's business dealings in California (described post, pp. 9-10). A few days before Blue Bird's responses were due, defense counsel claimed (on February 4) he never received plaintiff's earlier mail asking for a continuance of the hearing but he still did not accede,...