In re Nexus 6P Products Liability Litigation
5:17-cv-02185
| N.D. Cal. | Feb 12, 2018Background
- Plaintiffs (15 named consumers) bring a putative nationwide class action alleging Nexus 6P smartphones (co-developed by Google and manufactured by Huawei) suffer defects (bootloops and unexpected shutdowns) and assert warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment claims against Huawei and Google.
- CAC alleges Huawei is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Texas, and asserts jurisdiction based on Huawei doing substantial business in this district and placing phones into the stream of commerce here.
- Huawei moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction; the court considered written materials and limited extra-complaint evidence Plaintiffs submitted by judicial notice request.
- Plaintiffs relied on Huawei’s product launch appearance in San Francisco and evidence of Huawei R&D operations in Santa Clara to argue contacts with California; CAC lacked allegations tying where purchases, injuries, or development of the Nexus 6P occurred.
- The court found Plaintiffs’ allegations insufficient for general or specific jurisdiction under controlling Supreme Court precedent but allowed limited jurisdictional discovery focused on whether Huawei’s Santa Clara R&D and its collaboration with Google related to the Nexus 6P.
- Court granted Huawei’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction with leave to amend and ordered the parties to submit a jurisdictional discovery plan and amended-complaint deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court has general jurisdiction over Huawei | Huawei’s California contacts (agent for service, registration, R&D presence) make it essentially at home in CA | Huawei is incorporated and headquartered in Texas; CA contacts insufficient for general jurisdiction | No general jurisdiction — contacts not "continuous and systematic" to render Huawei at home in CA |
| Whether court has specific jurisdiction over Huawei | Huawei placed Nexus 6P into stream of commerce in this district and did substantial business here; collaboration with Google connects Huawei to CA | No suit-related conduct by Huawei in CA connected to Plaintiffs’ purchases or injuries; relationship with Google and sales in CA insufficient | No specific jurisdiction as pled; plaintiff must show defendant’s suit-related conduct created a substantial connection with CA |
| Effect of Bristol-Myers decision on jurisdictional analysis | Plaintiffs rely on stream-of-commerce and nationwide-class allegations made before Bristol-Myers | Bristol-Myers requires an affiliation between forum and underlying controversy; third-party relationships alone are insufficient | Bristol-Myers controls; CAC lacks allegations tying Huawei’s CA conduct to Plaintiffs’ claims |
| Whether limited jurisdictional discovery is appropriate | Plaintiffs ask to probe Huawei’s CA R&D and collaboration with Google to show link to Nexus 6P | Huawei resists discovery absent prima facie showing | Court permits limited jurisdictional discovery focused on Santa Clara R&D and Huawei–Google collaboration and grants leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (general jurisdiction requires defendant be essentially at home in forum)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (distinguishes general and specific jurisdiction principles)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (specific jurisdiction requires connection between forum and each claim)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (plaintiff must show defendant’s suit-related conduct created substantial connection with forum)
- Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059 (prima facie burden on plaintiff in written-material jurisdictional attack)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts due process standard)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (treat uncontroverted complaint allegations as true in jurisdictional analysis)
- Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (jurisdictional discovery may be appropriate when more facts are needed)
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (California’s long-arm statute is coextensive with federal due process)