Hellman v. Polaris Industries, Inc., 2:21-cv-00949

Polaris sold UTVs bearing a sticker stating the vehicle ROPS (rollover protection system) complies with OSHA requirements; plaintiffs allege the ROPS testing method does not meet OSHA and the sticker is false.
Five individual plaintiffs (residents of California, Oregon, Nevada, and Texas) sued Polaris under consumer-protection laws of California, Oregon, Nevada, and Texas and seek class certification for consumers in those states.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Oregon, Nevada, and Texas claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ requests for equitable restitution and injunctive relief under California law for failure to state a claim under Sonner.
The court found plaintiffs waived opposing general-jurisdiction arguments and that defendants are not subject to general jurisdiction in California (incorporated/principal place in other states).
The court held there is no specific jurisdiction over the nonresident (OR, NV, TX) claims because those claims lack a sufficient connection to California; pendent personal jurisdiction was declined.
The court dismissed the Oregon, Nevada, and Texas claims without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction, granted dismissal with prejudice of equitable restitution under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL, and denied dismissal of injunctive relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
General personal jurisdiction in California	Plaintiffs alleged substantial California activities (e.g., large distribution center)	Defendants are incorporated/PPB outside CA and lack continuous/systematic CA contacts	Court: Plaintiffs waived opposing general-jurisdiction defense; no general jurisdiction
Specific personal jurisdiction over nonresident claims (OR, NV, TX)	Claims arise from same alleged misrepresentation; nationwide conduct supports jurisdiction	Nonresident claims arose outside CA and lack affiliation with CA; Bristol-Myers limits jurisdiction absent connection	Court: No specific jurisdiction; nonresident claims dismissed without prejudice
Pendent personal jurisdiction for nonresident state-law claims	Common nucleus of operative facts supports exercising pendent jurisdiction	No federal claims and no independent nationwide jurisdictional basis; judicial economy insufficient	Court: Declined to exercise pendent personal jurisdiction
Equitable remedies under CA statutes (restitution and injunction) after Sonner	Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief for future harm and equitable restitution for past harm	Sonner requires showing absence of adequate legal remedy to obtain equitable restitution	Court: Injunctive relief allowed (plaintiffs alleged risk of future harm); equitable restitution dismissed with prejudice (plaintiffs failed to oppose)

Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Tech., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff must make prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts)
Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts due process standard)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (specific vs general jurisdiction framework)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction requires contacts rendering defendant essentially at home)
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (three-prong test for specific jurisdiction)
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (specific jurisdiction requires connection between forum and underlying controversy)
Action Embroidery Corp. v. Atl. Embroidery, Inc., 368 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2004) (pendent personal jurisdiction doctrine)
Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) (plaintiff must show lack of adequate remedy at law to obtain equitable restitution)
Deveraturda v. Globe Aviation Sec. Servs., 454 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2006) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is without prejudice)
Roper v. Big Heart Pet Brands, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 3d 903 (E.D. Cal. 2020) (injunctive relief may proceed where future harm alleged)
Zeiger v. WellPet LLC, 526 F. Supp. 3d 652 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (monetary damages are retrospective and may be inadequate to redress prospective harms)