DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25277298·sf·Civil·Asbestos Litigation
Hearing 11 months agoDENIED

ROY EDWARD ABENDROTH VS. 3M COMPANY ET AL

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS

Hearing date
Oct 7, 2025
Department
304
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Quash rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffROY EDWARD ABENDROTH
Defendant3M COMPANY
DefendantThe Stephen Co.

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Asbestos Law & Motion - CGC25277298 - October 7, 2025 Hearing date: October 7, 2025 Case number: CGC25277298 Case title: ROY EDWARD ABENDROTH VS. 3M COMPANY ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25277298 | Case Title: | | ROY EDWARD ABENDROTH VS. 3M COMPANY ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-07 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS | Rulings: | | On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, October 7, 2025, in Department 304, Line 5.

Specially Appearing Defendant, The Stephen Co., Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Old 97 Company's ("Defendant" or "Stephen") Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction came on hearing on July 15, 2025. The Court issued a tentative ruling denying the motion, which Defendant contested. After hearing from the parties, the Court continued the hearing for the Plaintiff to conduct jurisdictional discovery, and for the parties to provide supplemental briefing.

Having considered the additional record, the Court DENIES the motion. Supplemental opposition filed. Supplemental reply filed. Defendant's objection to Exhibit 8 - Order from Scott v. Albertson's, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 25STCV05372 and Exhibit 9 - Order from Carol Denevan v. 3M Company, et al matter, Alameda Case No. 25CV117299, is SUSTAINED. State trial court rulings have no precedential value and are not binding on this Court. (Bolanos v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 744, 761; see also, e.g., Santa Ana Hospital Medical Center v. Belshe (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 819, 83.) All other objections are OVERRULED.

*Complete tentative ruling has been electronically served to Counsel. The moving party shall lodge with the clerk in Department 304 by the time set for this hearing a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling.

Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling must email contestasbestostr@sftc.org by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing and state their intention to contest. If a hearing is requested, it will be on October 7, 2025, at 9:00 a.m in Department 206. Attorneys may appear in person or remotely via zoom: Meeting ID: 161 085 3547; Passcode: 902179. Face coverings are optional.

The Court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law and Motion department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: Their name, CSR and telephone number, and their individual work email address. There will be only one official record. If the parties cannot agree, the Court will designate a qualified court reporter to provide the official transcript for the matter, and the party or parties will bear the cost. =(RCE/206). | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share