ALTAWIL vs ADAPTURE RENEWABLES, INC., et al.

26CV173866: ALTAWIL vs ADAPTURE RENEWABLES, INC., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by KIRKBI CLIMATE A/S (Defendant) CRS# 458595466482 in Department 512

Tentative Ruling - 08/26/2026 Elizabeth Riles

The Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by KIRKBI CLIMATE A/S (Defendant) CRS# 458595466482 scheduled for 08/27/2026 is continued to 12/03/2026 at 02:30 PM in Department 512 at Hayward Hall of Justice.

Because this Tentative Ruling was published after 3:00 p.m. the day before the hearing, THE PARTIES MAY CONTEST THIS TENTATIVE RULING NO LATER THAN 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, 8/26/2026.

The Court CONTINUES the hearing on defendant Kirkbi Climate A/S’ (“Defendant” or “Kirkbi”) Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (the “Motion to Quash”) to Thursday, 12/3/2026 to allow plaintiff Samer Altawil (“Plaintiff”) to conduct narrowly focused written jurisdictional discovery to the extent authorized below.

Plaintiff may file and serve supplemental Opposition papers no later than Wednesday, 11/18/2026 at 5:00 p.m., and Defendant may file and serve supplemental Reply papers no later than Wednesday, 11/25/2026.

This is an employment discrimination case in which Plaintiff Samer Altawil ("Plaintiff") alleges he was wrongfully fired for engaging in protected whistleblower activity. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Adapture Renewables, Inc. (“Adapture”) and Kirkbi were his joint employers.

APPLICABLE LAW

“When a defendant challenges jurisdiction through a motion to quash, the plaintiff bears the burden to demonstrate facts, as to each nonresident defendant, justifying the exercise of jurisdiction by a preponderance of evidence.” (Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 221-222.)

“The plaintiff must do more than merely allege jurisdictional facts. It must present evidence sufficient to justify a finding that California may properly exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. The plaintiff must provide affidavits and other authenticated documents in order to demonstrate competent evidence of jurisdictional facts. Allegations in an unverified complaint are insufficient to satisfy this burden of proof. Declarations cannot be mere vague assertions of ultimate facts, but must offer specific evidentiary facts permitting a court to form an independent conclusion on the issue of jurisdiction.” (In re Automobile Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110 [internal citations omitted.])

A defendant’s “minimum contacts” with California can establish the Court’s personal jurisdiction over the defendant in two ways: generally (i.e., as to all claims and causes of action) 26CV173866: ALTAWIL vs ADAPTURE RENEWABLES, INC., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by KIRKBI CLIMATE A/S (Defendant) CRS# 458595466482 in Department 512 or specifically (i.e., as to causes of action related to the contacts themselves). (See Bristol- Meyers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1779-1780.)

To afford general jurisdiction to a state’s courts, a defendant’s contacts with the state must be so systematic and extensive that the corporation is “fairly regarded as at home” in the state. (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 137-139.) The paradigm examples of corporations at home in California include those which are incorporated here or have their principal place of business within the state. (Daimler AG, supra, 571 U.S. at p.137; Goodyear Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v. Brown (2011) 564 U.S. 915, 923-924.)

A state court can constitutionally exercise “specific” specific personal jurisdiction over an outof-state corporate defendant as to causes of action or claims when: (1) the defendant purposely established contacts with the forum state; (2) a plaintiff’s cause of action “arises out of” or is “related to” the defendant’s contacts with the forum state; and (3) the forum’s exercise of personal jurisdiction in the particular case comports with “fair play and substantial justice.” (Burger King Corp. v.

Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 477-478.) “In order for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a claim, there must be an ‘affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State.’” (Bristol-Meyers, supra, 137 S.Ct. at p.1781.) “When there is no such connection, specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant’s unconnected activities in the State.” (Ibid.) Further, “specific jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction.” (Bristol-Meyers, supra, 137 S.Ct. at p. 1780.)

Plaintiff has the burden of production of evidence on the first two elements of the specific personal jurisdiction analysis stated above. (LG Chem, Ltd. v. Sup.Ct. of San Diego County (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 348, 361.) "It is [plaintiff's] burden to prove this second prong of the specific jurisdictional analysis, and he must do that with “‘competent evidence of jurisdictional facts.’” (80 Cal.App.5th at 365, quoting Rivelli v. Hemm (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 380, 393.) "In the sphere of specific jurisdiction, the phrase ‘relate to’ incorporates real limits, as it must to adequately protect defendants foreign to a forum.” (80 Cal.App.5th at 367, quoting Ford Motor Co. (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1026.) “[T]he plaintiff must establish the purposeful availment and relatedness requirements by a preponderance of the evidence.” (L.W. v.

Audi (2025) 108 Cal.App.4th 95, 108; but see Yamashita v. LG Chem, Ltd. (9th Cir. 2023) 62 F.4th 496, 502, stating in relevant part, “Where the defendant's motion is based on written materials rather than an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss.”)

Merely selling a product that ends up being used in California is insufficient to create specific personal jurisdiction unless the sale was purposefully targeted to California. (Bombardier Recreational Prods., Inc. v. Dow Chem. Canada ULC (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 591, 603-604; see also World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 297 [presence of defendant’s product in forum state, even if foreseeable, is insufficient if the defendant did not direct it there].)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV173866: ALTAWIL vs ADAPTURE RENEWABLES, INC., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by KIRKBI CLIMATE A/S (Defendant) CRS# 458595466482 in Department 512

ANALYSIS OF MOTION TO QUASH

Defendant presents evidence in the moving papers that it is a Danish corporate entity with principal place of business in Denmark. (Trebbian Dec. ¶ 3.) Defendant presents the declaration of its Vice President Kasper Trebbian, who declares, often in conclusory fashion, that Defendant does not maintain offices in California; is not qualified to do business in California; has no employees in California; Adapture is a separate corporate entity from Defendant; Adapture is responsible for its own business operations including employment and human resources functions; Defendant does not manage Adapture’s day-to-day affairs; does not control Adapture’s employment policies, procedures or working conditions of Adapture’s employees; employment decisions for Adapture’s employees are made by Adapture; Defendant did not make, direct or approve the decision to terminate Plaintiff; Kirkbi and Adapture maintain separate corporate formalities; and Kirkbi and Adapture do not commingle funds.

In Opposition, Plaintiff presents his own largely conclusory declaration that he was jointly hired by Adapture and Kirkbi and that he jointly worked for the two companies. (Supp. Altawil Dec. ¶¶ 3-5.) However, Plaintiff presents no corroborating evidence to support these declared facts. Plaintiff declares that in order to be promoted to his final position of Vice President of People, Adapture’s CEO Thomas Houghton had to obtain the approval of Kirkbi’s board of directors. (Id. at ¶ 6.) However, Plaintiff’s declaration contains no foundation for his personal knowledge of this declared fact.

Plaintiff also declares that Kirkbi’s board of directors retained a recruitment agency to hire a new CFO for Adapture, Kirkbi’s board members participated in interviews of Adapture’s leadership team and were involved in the decisions to replace a prior Adapture CFO and COO/General Counsel, again without foundation or corroborating evidence. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-8.) Plaintiff declares that Anupam Bharagva serves as both CEO of Kirkbi and as lead board member for Adapture. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-10.) He declares that Kirkbi partially controlled his work activities, without providing any specifics. (Id. at ¶ 12.)

The Court puts little weight on Plaintiff’s conclusory declaration except for the declared fact that Mr. Bharagva served as both Kirkbi’s CEO and Adapture’s lead board member concurrently during the relevant period, because Defendant does not dispute this fact in Reply.

Plaintiff also presents evidence that on 10/16/2025 he sent a confidential formal complaint to Mr. Bharagva’s Kirkbi email address and those of two other Kirkbi employees, officers or directors, including Vice President Trebbian. (Supp. Benton-Hayes Dec. Exh.

5. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s counsel has no personal knowledge to authenticate Plaintiff’s emails and that the 10/16/2025 emailed complaint should have been attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s declaration. However, Defendant did not serve written objections in Reply and therefore waived any evidentiary defect.)

Mr. Bharagva responded from his Kirkbi email address that they had received the email, would review it in the following week and would get back to Plaintiff, presumably on behalf of Kirkbi,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV173866: ALTAWIL vs ADAPTURE RENEWABLES, INC., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by KIRKBI CLIMATE A/S (Defendant) CRS# 458595466482 in Department 512 as no other employee, officer or director of Adapture is copied on either of these emails. (Ibid.) Plaintiff also presents evidence that Bharagva from his Kirkbi email address wrote to Adapture CEO Houghton stating that the board is behind Houghton and Adapture leadership. (Id. at Exh. 6.) Although it is unclear from the email which of Kirkbi’s or Adapture’s board Bharagva was speaking on the behalf of, it appears most likely that it was the Kirkbi board of directors, unless all of the officer, directors or employees of Kirkbi including Trebbian, copied on the email are also members of Adapture’s board of directors.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Opposition evidence is insufficient to meet Plaintiff’s burden of production to show Kirkbi and Adapture are alter egos, that Kirkbi exerted day-to-day control over Adapture or that Adapture performs a function that is compatible with and assists Kirkbi conduct Kirkbi’s own business in California that Kirkbi would otherwise be required to perform itself. (See Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Sup.Ct. (83 Cal.App.4th 523.)

However, the Court finds Plaintiff’s evidence sufficient to entitle him to conduct narrowly focused written jurisdictional discovery (Special Interrogatories and Document Requests only) regarding the issues enumerated at Supp. Opp. MPA at pp. 14:23-15:7. The Court will not authorize deposition discovery or written discovery of any other issues not identified in Plaintiff’s supplemental Opp. MPA at this time.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE RULINGS

PLEASE NOTE: If any party contests the tentative ruling, the hearing on the motion will occur remotely via the court's own video-conferencing system.

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing date.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 512, by email at Dept512@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application.

TO CONNECT TO ZOOM:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV173866: ALTAWIL vs ADAPTURE RENEWABLES, INC., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by KIRKBI CLIMATE A/S (Defendant) CRS# 458595466482 in Department 512

Join the meeting using the following link: https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16057661931 Join the meeting by Phone:

Meeting ID: 160 5766 1931

1 669 254 5252, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 1 669 216 1590, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free