Filed 7/7/22

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH 

AMERICA LLC,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

 Respondent;

YONGQUAN HU et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

 B316199

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 21STCV07830)

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. 

Curtis A. Kin, Judge. Petition denied. 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, Philip R. Cosgrove 

and Ryan E. Cosgrove, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent. 

Strassburg, Gilmore & Wei, William R. Gilmore, for Real 

Parties in Interest. 

____________________________
2

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Daimler Trucks North America LLC (Daimler) is 

a defendant in a lawsuit brought by real parties in interest 

Yongquan Hu and Jinghua Ren (collectively, Hu). Hu seeks to 

recover for injuries stemming from a truck accident that occurred 

in Oklahoma.

1 Daimler filed a motion to quash for lack of 

personal jurisdiction, which the trial court denied. In this 

petition for a writ of mandate, Daimler argues the motion to 

quash should have been granted because the operative facts do 

not establish Daimler is subject to jurisdiction in California. 

Daimler additionally challenges the trial court’s rulings on its 

evidentiary objections. We deny the petition for writ of mandate. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Long Distance Tractor-Trailer Accident

Sometime prior to March 21, 2020, Mr. Hu and Ran Gao,

both California residents and long-distance tractor-trailer 

drivers, made their way from California to the east coast. On 

that date, they were on the return trip to California, transporting 

goods from New Jersey. While Gao was driving on Interstate 40 

in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the tractor-trailer was involved in 

a single vehicle accident. Mr. Hu was seriously injured.2

The 2016 Freightliner Cascadia truck in which the two 

were riding was originally sold by Daimler. Per Daimler’s person 

most knowledgeable, Cascadias are intended to be used for

journeys across multiple state lines. Daimler’s website states the 

Cascadia is an “on-highway truck” with an interior designed for 

1 Ren is Mr. Hu’s wife and brought suit for loss of 

consortium. 

2 Mr. Gao is not a party to this appeal. 
3

drivers who may spend more than 100 hours per week in the cab. 

In 2015, Daimler sold the Freightliner in which Mr. Hu was 

riding to Werner Enterprises and shipped the truck to Georgia. 

Werner Enterprises maintains a national truck fleet based in 

Nebraska. It has a hub in Fontana, California, where it sells 

used trucks. In 2019, Mr. Hu’s employer, a California 

corporation, bought the subject Freightliner Cascadia from 

Werner Enterprises’ Fontana hub. 

2. Daimler’s Freightliner Business

Daimler is a Delaware limited liability company with its 

principal place of business in Portland, Oregon. Daimler owns 

the Freightliner brand. Although Daimler does not manufacture 

or assemble vehicles in California, it does conduct considerable 

business in the state. 

Daimler advertises Freightliner trucks, including the 

Cascadia specifically, across multiple national and regional 

media that is also directed to California. Daimler has 32 

authorized dealerships in California that sell Freightliners.

Customers can order the vehicles at these dealerships; Daimler 

then assembles the specified vehicles and delivers them to the 

dealership. Between 4,000 to 5,000 trucks were sold in California 

each year from 2014 to 2020. Authorized dealerships advertise 

Freightliner trucks, and Daimler provides the dealerships with

information for display advertising purposes. Daimler also sells 

and ships truck parts to 27 of these authorized California

dealerships. The dealerships offer a variety of specialized 

maintenance and repair services. Twenty-three of the authorized

California dealerships service Freightliner trucks. There are 11 

truck “Elite Support” locations in California. These service 

centers offer customers the services of mechanics who receive 
4

“continual training from the experts at Freightliner” and must 

meet specific criteria. Nine “ServicePoint” locations in California

offer 24/7 service, repairs, parts, inspections, and trailer 

maintenance. Seven “Body Shop” locations in California provide

Freightliner crash repair and other repair services not often 

available in a typical dealership. Hundreds of these service shops

are located in the United States. 

Daimler also provides telephone and online support that is 

available in California—its website claims that “no matter where 

you are, we’ve got you covered.” This support includes a 24/7 

helpline that provides technological support, roadside assistance, 

towing, and referral to service locations for Freightliners. The 

“Detroit Connect” service can monitor Freightliner trucks’ driving 

performance. One feature of this service is that it transmits fault 

codes to Daimler. Daimler is then able to notify the truck’s owner 

of the problem and refer them to an authorized service location

for service. 

3. Lawsuit against Daimler and the Motion to Quash

In March 2021, Hu filed suit against Daimler and other 

(non-appealing) defendants, alleging products liability,

negligence and loss of consortium claims against the company. 

Daimler filed a motion to quash and asserted lack of 

personal jurisdiction. Daimler argued it was not subject to 

specific jurisdiction in California, primarily because the causes of 

action did not arise out of or relate to its forum-related activities.

3

Daimler did not engage in any activity dealing with the subject 

3 Daimler also argued below that it was not subject to suit in 

California based on general jurisdiction. As will become 

apparent, we decide the case based on specific jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, we do not address general jurisdiction.
5

Freightliner Cascadia that took place in, or was directed at, 

California. According to Daimler, no activity in California caused

the injuries. 

Hu opposed the motion. He argued Daimler was subject to 

specific jurisdiction because it had purposefully availed itself of 

the privilege of doing business in California by marketing, 

selling, and servicing within the state the same model of

Freightliner truck involved in the accident. The Cascadia was 

specifically designed for long hauls, and “was outfitted with a 

specially designed sleeping compartment for this purpose.” And 

because Daimler had “systematically served a market in 

California for the very vehicle that the Plaintiffs allege was 

defective and injured them,” Hu’s claims related to Daimler’s 

contacts with California. Other ties to California were that Mr. 

Hu and his wife are California residents, Mr. Hu was working for 

a California company and driving to California at the time of the 

accident, the subject vehicle was purchased in California, and the 

bulk of the damages for pain and suffering and medical expenses

occurred and would continue to occur in California. Hu continued 

that, by marketing, selling, servicing and supporting their

Freightliner trucks in California, Daimler had notice it could be 

subject to suit there. The fact the particular truck involved in 

this litigation came to California through an intermediary did not 

make jurisdiction unfair, especially because Daimler certainly 

understood that some of its trucks likely would be resold in 

California. That the injury occurred out of state did not defeat 

jurisdiction either. Daimler’s extensive business operations in 

this state supported a finding of personal jurisdiction, as did the 

fact that it knew—and its marketing campaign promoted—that 

the Freightliner trucks would be used by its owners for cross-
6

country transportation. According to Hu, a necessary incident of 

Daimler’s business was the risk that its activities in any state 

could foreseeably cause injury to a person in a distant forum. 

Hu asserted that jurisdiction also comported with notions 

of fair play and substantial justice. Daimler was an international 

corporation, while Mr. Hu and his wife were California residents. 

California had an interest in hearing the dispute because it 

involved Daimler’s allegedly unsafe product that was regularly 

being sold in this state and which injured two California

residents. Hearing the case in California would also promote 

judicial efficiency because California had jurisdiction over the 

other defendants. 

4. Ruling on the Motion to Quash

The trial court denied the motion, finding that it could 

exercise specific jurisdiction over Daimler. The court began by 

assessing the three elements necessary for a finding of specific 

jurisdiction: “ ‘(1) the defendant has purposefully availed itself of 

forum benefits with respect to the matter in controversy; (2) the 

controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant’s contacts

with the forum; and (3) the assertion of jurisdiction would 

comport with fair play and substantial justice.’ (Virtual Magic 

Asia, Inc. v. Fil-Cartoons, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 228, 238–39,

citing Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 

83 Cal.App.4th 523, 526.)”

The first element. The trial court found the first element

was satisfied by the extent of Daimler’s business in California. 

The court identified Daimler’s national advertising campaigns 

(that were directed to California) in magazines, radio, and digital 

media; Daimler’s policy that allowed authorized dealerships to 

advertise the subject vehicle—32 of those dealerships sold the 
7

subject vehicle in California; Daimler’s sales of between 4,000 to 

5,000 trucks per year in California between 2014 and 2020; its 

program of servicing vehicles in California and shipping parts for 

the subject vehicle to 27 “authorized parts/sales locations” in 

California; Daimler’s adoption of its “fault code” plan to enable it 

to monitor the performance of the Freightliner trucks; and, 

finally, Daimler’s creation of a 24/7 helpline. “The advertising, 

selling, and servicing of a product in a forum state supports a 

finding that the manufacturer of that product purposefully 

availed itself of the benefits of the forum state.” 

The second element. The trial court found that the second 

prong was also met—the claims themselves were sufficiently 

related to Daimler’s “selling of Freightliner trucks in California.”

Mr. Hu and his wife were California residents, Mr. Hu was

headed to California to deliver goods when the accident occurred, 

the subject vehicle was purchased in California, and Daimler

intended the vehicle to be driven in interstate transport. That

the accident occurred in Oklahoma on the way to California did 

not negate that the claims arose out of or had a substantial 

connection with a business relationship Daimler purposefully 

established with California. Where “Daimler knowingly 

promotes and directs to California residents the sale and 

servicing of its truck designed to transport goods across multiple 

states, and where a California resident is injured transporting 

goods across states lines to California while in one of those trucks 

(which had been sold in California to a California company), that 

resident’s claims of injury are sufficiently related to Daimler’s

activities in California, even if the accident causing the injury 

happened to occur in another State while defendant’s truck was 

en route to California.” 
8

The third element. For the third prong, the trial court 

concluded jurisdiction would comport with fair play and 

substantial justice. California has a strong interest in providing 

a local forum for its residents to redress injuries inflicted by out

of state defendants. The other defendants are California 

residents, and litigating the claims in one forum would avoid a 

multiplicity of suits and conflicting adjudications. Finally, the 

intended interstate purpose of Daimler’s trucks and the

purposeful availment of the California market for the sale of 

those trucks supported the reasonableness of having Daimler

defend against the claims in California. 

5. Writ Proceedings

Daimler filed in this court a petition for writ of mandate, 

challenging the trial court order denying the motion to quash. 

On December 16, 2021, we issued an order to show cause why the 

relief sought in the petition should not be granted. Hu filed a 

return, and Daimler filed a reply. 

DISCUSSION

In its writ petition, Daimler alleges the trial court

principally erred because the court failed to identify the requisite

direct causal connection or relationship between the injuries and 

Daimler’s activities in California. Daimler also argues the order 

violated the traditional notions of fair play and substantial 

justice because California’s interest in the dispute is secondary to 

that of Oklahoma, where the accident occurred. Finally, Daimler 

claims that the trial court improperly overruled its evidentiary 

objections to opposing counsel’s declaration. 

1. Principles of Personal Jurisdiction

California courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over a 

nonresident defendant on any basis not inconsistent with the 
9

constitutions of this state or the United States. (Code Civ. Proc., 

§ 410.10; Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 

14 Cal.4th 434, 444 (Vons Companies).) “The Due Process Clause 

of the Fourteenth Amendment constrains a State’s authority to 

bind a nonresident defendant to a judgment of its courts. 

[Citation.] Although a nonresident’s physical presence within the 

territorial jurisdiction of the court is not required, the 

nonresident generally must have ‘certain minimum contacts . . . 

such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional 

notions of fair play and substantial justice.” ’ International Shoe 

Co. v. Washington [(1945)] 326 U.S. 310, 316 (quoting Milliken v. 

Meyer [(1940)] 311 U.S. 457, 463).” (Walden v. Fiore (2014) 

571 U.S. 277, 283.)

“When determining whether specific jurisdiction exists, 

courts consider the ‘ “relationship among the defendant, the 

forum, and the litigation.” ’ [Citations.] A court may exercise 

specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) ‘the 

defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum 

benefits’ [citation]; (2) ‘the “controversy is related to or ‘arises out 

of’ [the] defendant’s contacts with the forum” ’ [citations]; and 

(3) ‘ “the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with 

‘fair play and substantial justice’ ” ’ [citations].” (Pavlovich v. 

Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269.)

On a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction, the 

plaintiff has the initial burden to demonstrate facts justifying the 

exercise of jurisdiction. If the plaintiff does so, the burden shifts 

to the defendant to show that exercising jurisdiction would be 

unreasonable. If there are no evidentiary conflicts, the existence 

of jurisdiction is a legal question that calls for our independent 

review. (Vons Companies, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 449.)
10

2. Daimler Has Purposefully Availed Itself of Forum 

Benefits

The first of the three elements Hu must establish is that 

the defendant purposefully availed itself of forum benefits. The 

defendant must take “ ‘some act by which [it] purposefully avails 

itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum 

State.’ Hanson v. Denckla [(1958)] 357 U.S. 235, 253[.] The 

contacts must be the defendant’s own choice and not ‘random, 

isolated, or fortuitous.’ Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc. [(1984)]

465 U.S. 770, 774[.] They must show that the defendant 

deliberately ‘reached out beyond’ its home—by, for example, 

‘exploi[ting] a market’ in the forum State or entering a 

contractual relationship centered there. Walden v. Fiore, 

571 U.S. 277, 285[] (2014).” (Ford Motor Company v. Montana 

Eighth Judicial District Court (2021) ___ U.S.___ [141 S.Ct. 1017, 

1024–1025] (Ford).)

Ford is the United States Supreme Court’s most recent 

pronouncement on personal jurisdiction. In Ford, the plaintiffs 

brought suit for injuries resulting from two unrelated accidents 

involving Ford vehicles, one in Montana and the other in 

Minnesota. As with the present case, the “vehicles were designed 

and manufactured elsewhere, and the company had originally 

sold the cars at issue outside the forum States. Only later resales 

and relocations by consumers had brought the vehicles to 

Montana and Minnesota [the forum states].” (Ford, supra,

141 S.Ct. at p. 1020.) The company conceded purposeful 

availment, which the Supreme Court noted was a “small wonder”: 

“By every means imaginable—among them, billboards, TV and 

radio spots, print ads, and direct mail—Ford urges Montanans 

and Minnesotans to buy its vehicles, including (at all relevant 
11

times) Explorers and Crown Victorias. Ford cars—again 

including those two models—are available for sale, whether new 

or used, throughout the States, at 36 dealerships in Montana and 

84 in Minnesota. And apart from sales, Ford works hard to foster 

ongoing connections to its cars’ owners. The company’s dealers in 

Montana and Minnesota (as elsewhere) regularly maintain and 

repair Ford cars, including those whose warranties have long 

since expired. And the company distributes replacement parts 

both to its own dealers and to independent auto shops in the two 

States. Those activities, too, make Ford money. And by making 

it easier to own a Ford, they encourage Montanans and 

Minnesotans to become lifelong Ford drivers.” (Id. at p. 1028.)

Like Ford, Daimler advertised across multiple media

nationally and regionally, including in California, urging 

purchases of Cascadia vehicles as well as other Freightliner 

trucks. Daimler sells Freightliner models through 32 dealerships 

located in California. Thousands of trucks have been sold in 

California. Daimler also takes various measures to ensure those 

customers will continue to have relationships with Freightliner.

Daimler sells and ships truck parts to 27 California dealerships.

A number of those dealerships provide specialized maintenance 

and repair services for Freightliners. Some of the locations

provide Freightliner-trained specialists. Daimler also furnishes

technological support by which customers are directed to 

Freightliner service locations. It is not seriously disputed that 

Daimler does substantial business in California and “actively 

seeks to serve the market for [Freightliner trucks] and related 

products” in that state. (Ford, supra, 141 S.Ct. at p. 1026.)
12

We agree with the trial court that Hu satisfied the first of 

the three elements necessary for personal jurisdiction.

4

3. Hu’s Claims “Relate to” Daimler’s Forum Contacts 

In order for a plaintiff to establish personal jurisdiction, the 

claims “ ‘must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts’

with the forum. [Citations.] Or put just a bit differently, ‘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 and is therefore subject to the State’s 

regulation.’ ” [Citation.]” (Ford, supra, 141 S.Ct. at p. 1025.)

The first half of the “ ‘arise out of or relate to’ ” standard “asks 

about causation; but the back half, after the ‘or,’ contemplates 

that some relationships will support jurisdiction without a causal 

showing.” (Id. at p. 1026.) “[T]he phrase ‘relate to’ incorporates 

real limits, as it must [] adequately protect defendants foreign to 

a forum. But again, we have never framed the specific 

jurisdiction inquiry as always requiring proof of causation—i.e.,

proof that the plaintiff’s claim came about because of the 

defendant’s in-state conduct.” (Ibid.)

The Ford Court added a new layer to specific jurisdiction 

caselaw, figuratively putting in bold font the “or” in “ ‘ “must 

arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts . . . .” ’ ” Even 

the two concurring justices agreed that the Court’s majority 

4 Although not explicitly conceding the point, Daimler does 

not raise much of any argument that Hu did not satisfy the first 

element: “Assuming arguendo that [p]laintiffs proved the first 

element of specific jurisdiction, the [r]espondent [c]ourt’s ruling 

was erroneous because [p]laintiffs wholly failed to meet the 

second element.” 
13

opinion no longer treated the second element as a single, tethered 

standard and that it is now to be read in the disjunctive. (Ford, 

supra, 141 S.Ct. at p. 1033 (conc. opn. of Alito, J.); id. at p. 1034 

(conc. opn. of Gorsuch, J.).) The concurring justices also agreed 

that “relate to” does not require causation. (Id. at p. 1033 (conc. 

opn. of Alito, J.); id. at p. 1034 (conc. opn. of Gorsuch, J.).) 

Daimler argues that Hu’s claims do not “relate to” 

Daimler’s activities in California for two reasons: (1) Daimler 

“did not design, manufacture, assemble, or sell the subject vehicle 

in California” and (2) “the injuries and accident occurred in 

Oklahoma.”

As for the claim that specific jurisdiction is lacking because 

Daimler did not design, manufacture, assemble, or sell the very 

Freightliner involved in California, that argument was squarely 

rejected by the high court in Ford. Much like the present case, 

Ford’s forum-related activities with the two Ford vehicles 

involved in the Montana and Minnesota accidents was virtually

non-existent, as Ford had not designed, manufactured, or sold the 

subject vehicles in those states. (Ford, supra, 141 S.Ct. at 

p. 1023.) The Supreme Court was unconvinced that jurisdiction 

could only exist if the company had designed, manufactured, or 

sold in the state the particular vehicle involved in the accident. 

“[T]hat argument merely restates Ford’s demand for an 

exclusively causal test of connection—which we have already 

shown is inconsistent with our caselaw.” (Id. at p. 1029.) The 

systematic contacts in the forum states (including contacts as to 

the specific types of vehicles at issue) rendered Ford accountable 

for the in-state accidents despite the out of state sale, even if the 

contacts in the forum states did not directly cause the injuries. 

(Ibid.) This would remain the case even if, as Ford suggested, 
14

that without the company’s Montana or Minnesota contacts, the 

plaintiffs’ claims would be the same. (Ibid.) The fact remains 

that Daimler’s Freightliner trucks were manufactured and 

marketed for precisely this type of intercontinental long haul 

trip. Daimler sold the California market on trips that emanate 

from California to other states and back, exactly the use present 

here.

As for Daimler’s argument that jurisdiction was defeated 

because the accident did not occur in California, Ford deemed the 

place of injury as something that “may be relevant in assessing 

the link between the defendant’s forum contacts and the 

plaintiff’s suit,” but did not hold that an in-state injury was a 

prerequisite for jurisdiction. (Ford, supra, 141 S.Ct. at pp. 1031–

1032.) As observed by Ford’s concurring justices, what would 

suffice for a claim to “relate to” a defendant’s forum contacts was 

left rather undefined, with the majority simply stating “relate to” 

“does not mean anything goes,” and “incorporates real limits.” 

(Id. at p. 1026.) To give an example of the absence of specific 

jurisdiction under the “relate to” standard, the court discussed 

this hypothetical: a California court hearing a claim against Ford 

brought by an Ohio plaintiff based on an accident occurring in 

Ohio involving a car purchased in Ohio. (Id. at p. 1027, fn. 3.) 

The example matches neither the facts of Ford nor the present 

case. It does, however, bear some resemblance to Bristol-Myers 

Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (2017) ___ U.S.___ [137 S.Ct. 1773] 

(Bristol-Myers), a case Daimler argues negates jurisdiction over 

injuries arising from the Oklahoma accident.

In Bristol-Myers, the plaintiffs brought suit in California 

based on injuries they suffered after taking the prescription drug 

Plavix. The defendant was a pharmaceutical company 
15

incorporated in Delaware, headquartered in New York, with 

operations in New York and New Jersey. The company engaged 

in some research, sales, and government advocacy activities in 

California, none involving Plavix, although it sold the drug there. 

The company did not develop Plavix in California, create a 

marketing strategy for Plavix in California, or manufacture, 

label, package, or do business in California on the regulatory 

approval of the product. The plaintiffs included nonresidents 

who did not obtain Plavix through a California source, did not 

ingest Plavix in California, were not injured by Plavix in 

California, and were not treated for injuries in California. (Id. at 

pp. 1778, 1781.) The Court concluded California was not the 

appropriate forum for those plaintiffs: “What is needed—and 

what is missing here—is a connection between the forum and the 

specific claims at issue.” (Id. at p. 1781.) 

The Ford court reminded that jurisdiction was lacking in

Bristol-Myers “because the forum State, and the defendant’s 

activities there, lacked any connection to the plaintiffs’ claims.”

(Ford, supra, 141 S.Ct. at p. 1031.) The Bristol-Myers plaintiffs 

were “engaged in forum-shopping—suing in California because it 

was thought plaintiff-friendly, even though their cases had no tie 

to the State.” (Ibid.)

The Ford court found important distinctions between its 

case and Bristol-Myers, distinctions that we find exist here. That 

Mr. Hu and his wife are both California residents weighs in favor 

of specific jurisdiction. A plaintiff’s residence can “be relevant in 

assessing the link between the defendant’s forum contacts and 

the plaintiff’s suit.” (Ford, supra, 141 S.Ct. at pp. 1031–1032.) 

The Ford court found that the plaintiffs’ residency in the forum 

states supported jurisdiction, and the plaintiffs’ lack of forum 
16

residency weighed against personal jurisdiction in Bristol-Myers. 

(Id. at p. 1031; Bristol-Myers, supra, 137 S.Ct. at p. 1782.) Mr. 

Hu also used the allegedly defective subject vehicle in California, 

as the outbound leg of his travel that resulted in his injuries 

began in California. Ford found that the subject vehicles’ use in 

the forum states supported jurisdiction there, and stood in 

contrast to the fact that the Bristol-Myers plaintiffs did not ingest 

Plavix in California. (Ford, at p. 1031; Bristol-Myers, at p. 1781.)

Bristol-Myers differs from the present case in another significant 

way, although one not discussed in Ford—In Bristol-Myers, the

Court observed that the nonresident plaintiffs did not seek 

treatment for their injuries in California and did not claim to 

have suffered harm in that state. (Bristol-Myers, at pp. 1778, 

1781, 1782.) In contrast, Hu seeks recovery of damages for, 

among other things, past and future medical expenses and loss of 

consortium. As Mr. Hu and his wife are California residents, 

medical expenses will have been incurred in California, and the 

harm due to the loss of consortium would have been suffered in 

California. Finally, as in Ford (but not Bristol-Myers), Daimler 

has “systematically served [the California] market” by 

advertising, selling, and servicing Freightliner trucks (including 

Cascadias) in California. (Ford, supra, 141 S.Ct. at p. 1028.) 

We conclude that Daimler’s activities supporting the sale 

and service of the Freightliner Cascadia in this state, and the 

other facts that we have discussed, demonstrate that Hu’s claims 

“relate to” those very California activities.

4. Assertion of Jurisdiction Comports with Fair Play 

and Substantial Justice

“[T]he burden on the defendant, while always a primary 

concern, will in an appropriate case be considered in light of other 
17

relevant factors, including the forum State’s interest in 

adjudicating the dispute [citation]; the plaintiff's interest in 

obtaining convenient and effective relief, [citation], at least when 

that interest is not adequately protected by the plaintiff's power 

to choose the forum, [citation]; the interstate judicial system’s 

interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of 

controversies; and the shared interest of the several States in

furthering fundamental substantive social policies.” (World-Wide 

Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 292.)

As the U.S. Supreme Court found in Ford, Daimler’s

business activities in California make it fair to allow jurisdiction 

here. “In conducting so much business in Montana and 

Minnesota, Ford ‘enjoys the benefits and protection of [their] 

laws’—the enforcement of contracts, the defense of property, the 

resulting formation of effective markets. [Citation.] All that 

assistance to Ford’s in-state business creates reciprocal 

obligations—most relevant here, that the car models Ford so 

extensively markets in Montana and Minnesota be safe for their 

citizens to use there. Thus our repeated conclusion: A state 

court’s enforcement of that commitment, enmeshed as it is with 

Ford’s government-protected in-state business, can ‘hardly be 

said to be undue.’ [Citation.] (Ford, supra, 141 S.Ct. at 

pp. 1029–1030.) “When minimum contacts have been 

established, often the interests of the plaintiff and the forum in 

the exercise of jurisdiction will justify even the serious burdens 

placed on the alien defendant.” (Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. 

Superior Court (1987) 480 U.S. 102, 114.)

The fairness of a California forum is bolstered by this 

state’s significant interests at stake in this litigation—providing 

residents with a convenient forum for redressing injuries inflicted 
18

by non-resident actors and enforcing its own safety regulations. 

(Ford, supra, 141 S.Ct. at p. 1030.) These interests are not 

nullified by the location of the accident in another state. 

While Daimler argues that “the fact that 7 other 

defendants can be sued in California has absolutely no bearing on 

the exercise of jurisdiction,” and now suggests real parties could 

pursue a case in Oklahoma, we do not see it that way. That 

California has jurisdiction over the other defendants reinforces 

the notion that jurisdiction over Daimler comports with fair play. 

The rights of all the defendants can be adjudicated in one setting, 

not one part in California and another part in Oklahoma or

Oregon or Delaware. A single suit is more economical, avoids the 

possibility of inconsistent judgments, and places post judgment 

proceedings, including any enforcement efforts, in one locale. 

5. The Court’s Evidentiary Rulings, Even If Erroneous,

Were Not Prejudicial

“We apply the abuse of discretion standard when reviewing 

the trial court’s rulings on evidentiary objections.” (Twenty-Nine 

Palms Enterprises Corp. v. Bardos (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1435, 

1447.) An “erroneous evidentiary ruling requires reversal only if 

‘there is a reasonable probability that a result more favorable to 

the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of

the error.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1449.)

Daimler raised multiple objections to a declaration filed by 

Hu’s counsel in opposition to the motion to quash. We 

summarize the statements to which objections were made and 

ultimately overruled by the trial court: (1) At the time of the 

accident, Mr. Hu was transporting a load from New Jersey to 

California; (2) Mr. Hu’s employer only purchases Freightliner 

trucks, and those trucks are serviced at “ServicePoint” locations; 
19

(3) Mr. Hu was sleeping in a sleeping bunk using a restraint at 

the time of the collision; he then moved laterally, struck his head, 

and was rendered quadriplegic; (4) Daimler is registered and 

licensed with the California Secretary of State, with a designated 

agent for service of process in California; (5) Daimler has 12 

California employees for whom it pays employment tax and in 

2020 paid around $110,000.00 in various state taxes; (6) Daimler

markets the Cascadia on its website, which details its features as 

well as the parts, servicing, and support offered. 

Any error in these rulings was harmless. The trial court 

did not rely on statements 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 in reaching its decision, 

so admitting those statements had no effect on the correctness of

the motion to quash ruling. Even if we were to disregard this 

evidence, we would affirm the trial court’s decision. The trial 

court referenced statement 1 – that at the time of the accident, 

Hu was transporting goods across state lines to California – as a 

fact supporting specific jurisdiction, but Daimler fails to 

demonstrate it is reasonably probable it would have received a 

more favorable result absent the statement’s admission. 

Although we have referred to this evidence in our description of 

the proceedings below, we ignore it for purposes of our analysis. 

Accordingly, any error was harmless. (People v. Valencia (2021) 

11 Cal.5th 818, 840 [applying the harmless error standard under 

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 to alleged hearsay 

evidence]; People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 671 [applying 

the Watson standard to testimony alleged to be irrelevant and 

lacking foundation].)
20

DISPOSITION

The petition for writ of mandate is denied. Real parties in 

interest Yongquan Hu and Jinghua Ren shall recover their costs 

in this proceeding. 

RUBIN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BAKER, J.

MOOR, J.