Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Canada ULC
157 Cal. Rptr. 3d 66
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Bombardier sued for injuries from a Sea-Doo; Dow Canada moved to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Dow Canada and its predecessors manufactured and sold fuel tanks in Canada; no California presence or advertising.
- Bombardier argued knowledge of U.S. distribution created California contacts via stream of commerce.
- Trial court sustained objections to Bombardier’s California-sourced evidence and quashed service.
- Court held Dow Canada lacked minimum contacts and affirmed quashment of service.
- Bombardier pursued related claims in Quebec; California court would not assert jurisdiction over Dow Canada.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dow Canada has minimum contacts with California | Bombardier: knowledge of U.S. entry suffices | Dow Canada: no purposeful availment or California contact | No, Dow Canada lacks minimum contacts |
| Whether trial court properly excluded Bombardier's out-of-state declarations | Bombardier: declarations show minimum contacts | Dow Canada: declarations not California-verified | Declarations improperly admitted; court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether evidence post-quash should be considered to establish jurisdiction | Bombardier: post-quash evidence shows regular flow | Dow Canada: post-quash evidence irrelevant | Evidence not admitted; not considered; does not change result |
Key Cases Cited
- Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 262 (Cal. 2002) (articulates purposeful availment standard)
- Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 1054 (Cal. 2005) (describes independent minimum contacts analysis)
- Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., 14 Cal.4th 434 (Cal. 1996) (minimum contacts framework for specific jurisdiction)
- Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1987) (foreseeability insufficient; need purposeful availment)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (purposeful availment tied to forum-state connection)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment and relatedness requirements)
- Harris v. Native Wholesale Supply Co., 196 Cal.App.4th 357 (Cal. App. 2011) (distinguishes tribal-entity jurisdiction from foreign manufacturer case)