2022 Ohio 2065
Ohio2022Background
- Plaintiffs Jeremy Darrow and Dale Mocek allege they were seriously injured in Ohio in March 2016 when LG 18650 lithium-ion cells exploded while carried in pockets; the cells were purchased at two Toledo vape shops.
- Relator LG Chem, Ltd. is headquartered in Seoul, South Korea and says it did not design, market, or sell 18650 cells for standalone consumer use and never dealt with the Toledo retailers.
- LG Chem acknowledged shipping 1,160 sample 18650 cells to Ohio to fulfill orders for an OEM in 2013–2014; its sales affidavit contained an apparent inconsistency about sales to Ohio.
- Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges LG Chem designed, manufactured, placed the batteries into the stream of commerce, and sold them in Lucas County, Ohio; plaintiffs served discovery seeking evidence of LG Chem’s Ohio contacts.
- The Lucas County trial judge denied LG Chem’s Civ.R. 12(B)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without an evidentiary hearing. LG Chem petitioned this court for a writ of prohibition.
- The Ohio Supreme Court denied the writ, holding personal jurisdiction in the trial court was not patently and unambiguously lacking given the pleadings, Choi affidavit, discovery gaps, and reasonable inferences that could be drawn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court patently and unambiguously lacked personal jurisdiction over LG Chem | Darrow: complaint and discovery allegations show LG Chem put cells into Ohio stream of commerce and expected consequences in Lucas County | LG Chem: no purposeful availment of Ohio; shipped only OEM samples; third-party conduct brought cells to Ohio; jurisdiction lacking | Denied writ — jurisdiction not patently and unambiguously lacking; factual disputes and inferences preclude extraordinary relief |
| Whether a writ of prohibition is appropriate despite an appellate remedy | Darrow: trial process and discovery should proceed; appeal suffices if jurisdictional error occurs | LG Chem: appeal is inadequate because jurisdiction is completely lacking and writ is needed now | Court: appeal is an adequate remedy unless lack of jurisdiction is patent and unambiguous; here it is not, so appeal remains adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (established "minimum contacts" standard for due-process personal jurisdiction)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (limits state courts' power to enter judgments against nonresidents)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958) (purposeful availment requirement)
- Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 (1940) (due-process limits on jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (general jurisdiction limited to forum where corporation is "at home")
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (specific jurisdiction requires claims to arise out of or relate to defendant's forum contacts)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (restricting general jurisdiction over corporations)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (specific jurisdiction can attach when defendant serves a market and product malfunctions in forum)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (focus on defendant's contacts with the forum rather than plaintiff's connections)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (stream-of-commerce and purposeful availment analysis)
- J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011) (plurality on targeting the forum for jurisdiction)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (distinguishing general and specific jurisdiction)
- Goldstein v. Christiansen, 70 Ohio St.3d 232 (1994) (standard: when ruling on a Civ.R. 12(B)(2) motion, courts view pleadings and documentary evidence in the plaintiffs' favor for prohibition review)
- State ex rel. Stone v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Div., 14 Ohio St.3d 32 (1984) (writ granted where defendant had no contacts with Ohio)
- State ex rel. Connor v. McGough, 46 Ohio St.3d 188 (1989) (writ granted where all relevant acts occurred outside Ohio and defendant had no Ohio contacts)