Quiniones v. LG Chem, LTD. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GIORGIO QUINIONES, No. 2:21-cv-01612-MCE-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 14 LG CHEM, LTD., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Giorgio Quiniones (“Plaintiff”) seeks to recover from LG Chem, Ltd., 18 (“Defendant”) for injuries sustained when his electronic cigarette “mod” device, in which 19 he allegedly used a “LG lithium-ion 18650 battery” manufactured by Defendant, ignited 20 next to him while he was sleeping in bed. Presently before the Court is Defendant’s 21 Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. ECF No. 9.1 For the following 22 reasons that Motion is GRANTED with leave to amend. 23 24 25 26 27 1 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter 28 submitted on the briefs. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(g). 1 STANDARD 2 3 A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void, and due process requires 4 that a defendant be subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court. World–Wide 5 Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 (1980) (citing Pennoyer v. Neff, 6 95 U.S. 714, 732–33 (1877); Int’l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (1945)). In opposing 7 a defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the 8 burden of establishing the court’s jurisdiction over the defendant. Wash. Shoe Co. v. 9 A-Z Sporting Goods Inc., 704 F.3d 668, 671 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). However, 10 when the defendant’s motion is based on written materials rather than an evidentiary 11 hearing, the plaintiff need only make a “prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts” to 12 withstand the motion to dismiss. Id. at 672 (citing Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 13 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006)). The court resolves all disputed facts in favor of the plaintiff. 14 Wash. Shoe, 704 F.3d at 672. 15 Where, as here, there is no federal statute authorizing personal jurisdiction, the 16 district court applies the law of the state in which the district court sits. Mavrix Photo, 17 Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2011). California Code of Civil 18 Procedure section 410.10, California’s long-arm statute, is “coextensive” with federal due 19 process requirements. Id. Accordingly, the “jurisdictional analyses under state law and 20 federal due process are the same.” Id. 21 There are two categories of personal jurisdiction from a due process perspective: 22 general and specific. A court has general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant 23 when the defendant’s contacts with the forum are “substantial” or “continuous and 24 systematic.” Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat. Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 25 2000). The standard for establishing general jurisdiction is an exacting standard that 26 requires the defendant’s contacts to approximate physical presence in the forum state. 27 Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004). Specific 28 personal jurisdiction, on the other hand, exists when a defendant’s “in-state activity is 1 continuous and systematic and that activity gave rise to the episode-in-suit.” Goodyear 2 Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 923 (2011) (citing Int’l Shoe, 3 326 U.S. 317 (1945)) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “the commission of 4 certain ‘single or occasional acts’ in a State may be sufficient to render a [defendant] 5 answerable in that State with respect to those acts . . . .” Id. (citation omitted). 6 The Ninth Circuit employs a three-part test to determine whether a non-resident 7 has sufficient minimum contacts to be subject to specific personal jurisdiction: i) the non- 8 resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some 9 transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he 10 purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby 11 invoking the benefits and protections of its law; ii) the claim must be one which arises out 12 of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities; and iii) the exercise of jurisdiction 13 must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e., it must be reasonable. Wash. 14 Shoe, 704 F.3d at 672. If the plaintiff satisfies the first two elements, the burden shifts to 15 the defendant to present a “compelling case” that the exercise of jurisdiction would not 16 be reasonable. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985). 17 A court granting a motion to dismiss a complaint must then decide whether to 18 grant leave to amend. Leave to amend should be “freely given” where there is no 19 “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, . . . undue prejudice 20 to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of [the] 21 amendment . . . .” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Eminence Capital, LLC v. 22 Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (listing the Foman factors as those to 23 be considered when deciding whether to grant leave to amend). Not all of these factors 24 merit equal weight. Rather, “the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party . . . 25 carries the greatest weight.” Id. (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 26 185 (9th Cir. 1987)). Dismissal without leave to amend is proper only if it is clear that 27 “the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.” Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Crest 28 Group, Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing In re Daou Sys., Inc., 411 F.3d 1 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 2005); Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th 2 Cir. 1989) (“Leave need not be granted where the amendment of the complaint . . . 3 constitutes an exercise in futility . . . .”)). 4 5 ANALYSIS 6 7 Plaintiff alleges he was injured by an LG Chem lithium battery sold to his girlfriend 8 in March 2019 by Yo Momma’s Favorite Vape Shop, a retailer in Stockton, California, for 9 use in his personal e-cigarette device.2 Defendant contends it cannot be hailed into this 10 forum to defend against Plaintiff’s claims, however, because it did not purposefully avail 11 itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, Plaintiff’s claims do not arise 12 out of or are related to Defendant’s activities in this forum, and the exercise of jurisdiction 13 would be unreasonable.3 14 To that end, Defendant has offered the following evidence to establish that this 15 forum is improper. First, Defendant is a Korean company with its principal place of 16 business in Seoul, South Korea. Decl. of Hwi Jae Lee, ECF No. 9, ¶ 7. “[It] is not 17 registered to do business in California, does not have an office in California, and does 18 not own or lease any property in California.” Id. ¶ 8. Second, according to Defendant, 19 “[it] never designed, manufactured, distributed, advertised, or sold 18650 lithium ion cells 20 for sale to or use by consumers as standalone, replaceable batteries.” Id. ¶ 11. “The 21 18650 lithium ion cells [Defendant] manufactured are industrial component parts; they 22 are not standalone replaceable consumer batteries, and they were not designed to be 23 handled by consumers.” Id. Third, Defendant also did not sell these batteries directly to 24 consumers and did not authorize anyone else to do so either. Id. ¶ 12. Fourth, 25 2 Plaintiff previously filed suit in the Northern District of Georgia alleging claims arising out of these same injuries. Defendant moved to dismiss the claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, after which Plaintiff 26 sought to transfer his case to this Court and then voluntarily dismissed his claims in that court before his motion was ruled upon. 27 3 Plaintiff concedes general jurisdiction is lacking. Accordingly, the Court will evaluate only 28 specific jurisdiction herein. 1 Defendant did not conduct business with Yo Momma’s Favorite Vape Shop or the 2 manufacturer of Plaintiff’s e-cigarette device, and it published a warning on its website 3 “warning against the use of 18650 cells as standalone, replaceable batteries.” Id. ¶¶ 14- 4 16. Finally, Defendant did not manufacture or design its 18650 lithium ion cells in 5 California, “did not have any distributors for its 18650 lithium-ion cells located in 6 California,” did not authorize re-wrapping its cells in another company’s brand exterior 7 wrapping, and never engaged in business with any entity engaged in the business of 8 selling 18650 lithium ion cells directly to consumers. Id. ¶¶ 13, 20-22. 9 Numerous courts have addressed similar arguments in this and other 10 jurisdictions. The Court joins those courts that have concluded personal jurisdiction is 11 lacking. See, e.g., LG Chem LTD. v. Superior Ct. of San Diego Cnty., 80 Cal. App. 5th 12 348 (4th Dist. 2022); Macias v. LG Chem, Ltd., No. SA CV 20-02416, 2021 WL 2953162 13 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2021); Payrovi v. LG Chem Am., Inc., 491 F. Supp. 3d 597 (N.D. Cal. 14 2020). The Court need not decide whether Defendant purposefully availed itself of the 15 privileges of doing business in this forum because, regardless, Plaintiff’s injuries did not 16 arise out of Defendant’s forum-related activities. See Macias, 2021 WL 2953162, at *4 17 (materially identical claims did not arise under Defendant’s forum-related activities in 18 California when, among other things, Defendant did not design, advertise, or sell its 19 batteries to individual consumers). Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack 20 of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery is 21 DENIED. 22 23 CONCLUSION 24 25 For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) is 26 GRANTED with leave to amend. Not later than twenty (20) days following the date this 27 Memorandum and Order is electronically filed, Plaintiff may, but is not required to, file an 28 amended complaint. If no amended complaint is timely filed, this action will be deemed 1 DISMISSED with prejudice upon no further notice to the parties. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 DATED: December 19, 2022 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28