In a recent legal development, Daniel Rossa has filed a personal injury complaint against Blue Bird Body Company, an out-of-state bus manufacturer. The complaint was filed in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Two on May 23, 2024. The defendant in this case is Blue Bird Body Company.
Rossa, a resident of California, sustained severe injuries to his leg due to the retractable electrical steps of a bookmobile. This bookmobile was manufactured by Blue Bird and sold out-of-state to OBS, Inc., which then modified it before selling it in California to Rossa's employer. The plaintiff contends that Blue Bird should be held liable for his injuries as they had a significant commercial presence in California and had provided maintenance services for the vehicle involved in the accident.
This is not the first time this jurisdictional issue has been brought before the court. Previously, Blue Bird moved to quash service of summons on grounds that it was not amenable to suit in California. In an earlier appeal (Rossa I), the trial court’s ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over Blue Bird was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. It was established that Blue Bird had purposefully availed itself of a California forum through its commercial activities including having employees in California and maintaining relationships with authorized dealers and service centers within the state.
However, upon remand and after additional jurisdictional discovery and briefing, the trial court again granted Blue Bird’s motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court found no sufficient nexus between Blue Bird’s contacts with California and Rossa’s lawsuit because Rossa's injury did not arise from any product or service directly provided by Blue Bird within California. Specifically, the retractable steps that caused Rossa's injury were designed and installed by OBS Inc., not by Blue Bird.
Rossa appealed this decision arguing that his claim relates sufficiently to Blue Bird’s commercial presence in California due to their nationwide advertising and business solicitations within the state. He also pointed out that there were emails referencing contacts with a Blue Bird representative about repairing the vehicle when it broke down prior to his accident.
Blue Bird countered these claims by asserting there was no admissible evidence proving they serviced this specific bus in California. They also contended that even if such evidence existed, it would not establish a substantial nexus between their activities in California and Rossa's injury since they did not design or install the retractable steps.
The trial court agreed with Blue Bird's position stating that Rossa failed to demonstrate his claims "arise out of or relate to" Blue Bird’s activities within California. The court emphasized that there was no evidence showing that Blue Bird marketed or sold buses with retractable steps or had any involvement in their installation or maintenance.
As a result, Rossa's appeal was denied and he is now seeking costs recovery from this litigation process.
The attorneys involved include Stewart P.J., Richman J., Miller J., representing both parties respectively under Case ID A165728.