62 F.4th 496
9th Cir.2023Background
- Plaintiff Matt Yamashita (Hawaii resident) suffered severe injuries in 2017 when an 18650 lithium‑ion battery powering his e‑cigarette exploded in his mouth.
- Yamashita sued LG Chem, Ltd. (LGC, South Korea) and LG Chem America, Inc. (LGCA, U.S. subsidiary), alleging they designed, manufactured, and distributed the battery; he says he bought it from an unidentified third party in Hawaii.
- Alleged forum contacts: shipments through the Port of Honolulu; LGC’s sales and activities in Hawaii’s residential solar‑battery market; consumer products sold in Hawaii that contain LGC 18650 cells; and a third‑party website selling stand‑alone LGC 18650 cells.
- Defendants denied selling or authorizing sale of stand‑alone 18650 batteries to consumers and submitted sworn declarations negating plaintiff’s key theories; district court denied jurisdictional discovery and dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Ninth Circuit affirmed: no general jurisdiction in Hawaii; limited purposeful‑availment forum contacts found, but plaintiff failed to show his injury "arose out of or related to" those contacts under Ford; denial of jurisdictional discovery was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General jurisdiction | LGC/LGCA’s Hawaii contacts make them "at home" in Hawaii | Neither entity is incorporated or has principal place of business in Hawaii; contacts are insufficient to be "at home" | Not at home; no general jurisdiction |
| Purposeful availment (specific jurisdiction) | LGC/LGCA placed batteries into stream of commerce and otherwise reached into Hawaii (shipments, products, website, solar business) | Mere placement in stream of commerce and third‑party sales do not constitute purposeful availment absent additional targeting | Some contacts (Honolulu shipments; solar‑battery sales) constitute purposeful availment; others (consumer products, alleged website sales) do not |
| Arise out of / relate to under Ford | Yamashita’s injury by an LGC cell relates to defendants’ Hawaii contacts (battery sales into Hawaii) | Plaintiff cannot show but‑for causation or adequate relatedness to the purposeful contacts; Ford does not eliminate the requirement that claims arise out of or relate to forum contacts | Plaintiff failed both prongs: no but‑for causation and no sufficient relatedness under Ford; specific jurisdiction lacking |
| Jurisdictional discovery | Discovery could reveal that the battery was sold into Hawaii as a stand‑alone cell or that defendants targeted Hawaii market | Defendants’ sworn denials and the speculative nature of plaintiff’s theories make discovery a fishing expedition | Denial of jurisdictional discovery was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (clarified that claims must "arise out of or relate to" forum contacts; relatedness can substitute for causation in some contexts)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (general jurisdiction requires a corporation to be "at home" in the forum)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (placement into stream of commerce alone does not establish purposeful availment)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (unilateral activity of a third party cannot establish defendant’s purposeful availment)
- Holland America Line Inc. v. Wärtsilä N. Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450 (9th Cir. 2007) (Ninth Circuit application of stream‑of‑commerce‑plus test)
- In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2013) (but‑for causation standard for "arise out of" analysis)