Rossa v. Blue Bird Body Co. CA1/2

Filed 5/23/24 Rossa v. Blue Bird Body Co. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

DANIEL ROSSA, Plaintiff and Appellant, A165728 v. BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 18CIV05767) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Personal injury plaintiff Daniel Rossa appeals the trial court’s order quashing service of summons on school bus manufacturer Blue Bird Body Company (Blue Bird) for lack of personal jurisdiction. Blue Bird cross- appeals the court’s ruling on its objections to some of Rossa’s evidence. The trial court did not err concluding it lacks personal jurisdiction over Blue Bird. Accordingly, we affirm.1

1We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We do not recite the factual and procedural background because our opinion is unpublished and the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and its procedural history.” (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished opinion merely reviewing correctness of trial court’s decision “does not merit extensive factual or legal statement”].)

1

DISCUSSION Rossa is a California resident who brought suit against out-of-state bus manufacturer Blue Bird and others for injuries he sustained when his leg was severely injured by the retractable electrical steps of a bookmobile. Blue Bird manufactured and sold the bus chassis out of state to a third party, OBS, Inc., which modified the bus by installing the electrical steps and converted it into a bookmobile before selling it in California to Rossa’s employer. (Rossa v. Blue Bird Body Co. (June 29, 2021, No. A160544) [nonpub. opn.] (Rossa I).) This is the second time the personal jurisdiction issue has been before us. Blue Bird moved to quash service of summons, contending it was not amenable to suit in California. In the prior appeal, we reversed the trial court’s ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over Blue Bird and remanded Blue Bird’s motion to quash for further proceedings. (See Rossa I, supra, A160544.) We presume the parties’ familiarity with the law and facts stated in our prior opinion and summarize the opinion here briefly. As we explained, “a state may exercise specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant ‘if the defendant has “purposefully directed” his activities at residents of the forum [citation], and the litigation results from alleged injuries that “arise out of or relate to” those activities.’ ” (Rossa I, supra, A160544.) In reversing the trial court’s ruling in the prior appeal, we held first that Rossa had satisfied the first prong of the jurisdictional analysis, by showing Blue Bird had purposefully availed itself of a California forum. (Rossa I, supra, A160544.) We rested this conclusion on undisputed evidence that Blue Bird had a “significant and deliberate commercial presence” in California, including evidence of three employees in California “including one