Jayone Foods, Inc. v. Aekyung Indus. Co.
242 Cal. Rptr. 3d 705
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Plaintiff's mother, a California resident, allegedly died from long-term use of Aekyung Humidifier Mate purchased in Los Angeles; plaintiffs sued multiple defendants in California for wrongful death.
- Jayone Foods (California importer/distributor) cross-complained against Aekyung Industrial Co., Ltd. (Korean manufacturer/distributor) for indemnity/contribution; Jayone alleged Aekyung sold product shipments to Jayone in 2006–2007 that reached Los Angeles and were resold to Kim's Home Center (where decedent purchased the product).
- Aekyung moved to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction, submitting declarations that it is Korean-based, had no California offices or advertising, and made only limited sales of the Humidifier Mate to Jayone (two shipments) while otherwise targeting the Korean market.
- Jayone opposed, presenting evidence of a continuing business relationship (2006–2010) with regular communications, Aekyung visits to Jayone in California, multiple shipments through Los Angeles/Long Beach ports, and nearly $1.78 million in Aekyung sales to California distributors from 2005–2012.
- Trial court granted the motion to quash, finding insufficient relatedness between Aekyung's California contacts and the wrongful-death claims; Jayone appealed.
- Court of Appeal reversed: it found specific jurisdiction proper because Aekyung purposefully availed itself of California via repeated direct sales to California distributors (including Jayone), the suit was substantially related to those contacts, and asserting jurisdiction was reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aekyung purposefully availed itself of California | Aekyung repeatedly sold and shipped products to California distributors (including Jayone), communicated regularly, visited Jayone in California, and derived substantial revenue from California sales | Aekyung sold mainly in Korea, had no California presence, and only made limited shipments (two) of the Humidifier Mate to Jayone; mere placement into the stream of commerce is insufficient | Purposeful availment found: repeated direct sales/contacts with multiple California distributors and revenue from California show deliberate efforts to serve the California market |
| Whether Plaintiffs' claims "arise out of or relate to" Aekyung's California contacts (relatedness) | The Humidifier Mate Aekyung sold to Jayone was shipped to Los Angeles, Jayone sold product to Kim's Home Center in LA (where decedent purchased it), creating a substantial nexus between Aekyung's contacts and the injury | Aekyung argued there was no proof the specific bottles causing the injury came from Aekyung's shipments; reliance on Bristol-Myers to say unrelated forum contacts can't establish specific jurisdiction | Relatedness satisfied: court rejected strict "but-for"/proximate-cause requirement; substantial nexus exists because Aekyung shipped product to Jayone in California and that product was resold to the retail store where decedent bought it |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable (fair play & substantial justice) | California has a strong interest (resident plaintiff, injury in state) and modern communication reduces burden on foreign defendants | Aekyung said defending in California imposes serious burdens on a foreign company and its contacts were limited | Unreasonable-ness not shown: defendant failed to present a compelling case; forum and plaintiff interests, and the extent of Aekyung's California sales, support jurisdiction |
| General jurisdiction over Aekyung | (Jayone initially alleged general jurisdiction) | Aekyung had no continuous/systematic presence in California | Jayone abandoned general jurisdiction on appeal; court addressed only specific jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., 14 Cal.4th 434 (Cal. 1996) (explains specific‑jurisdiction "substantial nexus" and that claims need only relate to forum contacts)
- Snowney v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 1054 (Cal. 2005) (discusses purposeful availment and specific‑jurisdiction framework)
- Secrest Machine Corp. v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.3d 664 (Cal. 1983) (sale to California business for use in state can establish purposeful availment)
- Luberski, Inc. v. Oleificio F.LLI Amato S.R.L., 171 Cal.App.4th 409 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (direct sales to California business support purposeful availment)
- Carretti v. Italpast, 101 Cal.App.4th 1236 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (distinguishes isolated foreign sales that do not target California market)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (U.S. 2017) (specific jurisdiction requires connection between forum and specific claims)
- J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (U.S. 2011) (stream‑of‑commerce principles and limits on jurisdiction)
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (discusses when placing products into interstate commerce supports jurisdiction)
- Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1987) (reasonableness factors and burden on foreign defendant)