868 S.E.2d 896
N.C. Ct. App.2022Background
- LG Chem (South Korea) manufactures 18650 lithium‑ion cells as industrial components; LG Chem America is a U.S. subsidiary that markets petrochemical products (not batteries) in the U.S.
- Plaintiff purchased 18650 cells in North Carolina vape shops; one cell exploded in his pocket in North Carolina, causing severe burns, and he sued LG Chem and LG America in NC state court for product liability, negligence, and breach of warranty.
- Plaintiff alleged the LG defendants placed 18650 cells into the U.S. (and North Carolina) stream of commerce and thus availed themselves of NC jurisdiction; he served discovery seeking support for jurisdictional contacts.
- LG defendants submitted affidavits and discovery responses denying they designed, marketed, sold, or intended 18650 cells for standalone consumer use in vape pens or that they sold/distributed 18650s into North Carolina for that purpose.
- The trial court granted LG defendants’ Rule 12(b)(2) motion and dismissed for lack of specific personal jurisdiction; the court also declined further jurisdictional discovery. The Court of Appeals (majority) affirmed; Judge Inman dissented, urging reversal and remand for discovery under Ford.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction (specific jurisdiction) | Miller: LG placed 18650 cells into U.S./NC stream of commerce and knowingly served NC market for those batteries; plaintiff’s injury in NC relates to those contacts. | LG: Neither LG Chem nor LG America purposefully availed themselves of NC for standalone 18650 consumer batteries; they did not sell/distribute such cells into NC and denied targeting NC consumers. | Court: Affirmed dismissal — plaintiff failed to show the required connection between LG’s contacts and the specific claims; stream‑of‑commerce allegations insufficient to establish purposeful availment. |
| Denial of jurisdictional discovery | Miller: Further discovery was needed to prove LG’s contacts and to establish jurisdiction under the “relate to” standard announced in Ford. | LG: Existing affidavits and responses rebut plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations; additional discovery not warranted. | Court: No abuse of discretion — trial court properly denied more discovery given lack of prima facie jurisdictional connection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (specific‑jurisdiction standard: claims must “arise out of or relate to” defendant’s forum contacts; some relationships may support jurisdiction without strict causation)
- Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (limits on specific jurisdiction where plaintiff’s claims lack connection to forum‑state contacts)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (jurisdictional inquiry centers on defendant’s forum‑directed conduct and connection between defendant’s contacts and the claim)
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (stream‑of‑commerce and purposeful availment principles for products sold into forum markets)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and reasonableness/fairness factors in specific jurisdiction analysis)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984) (continuous exploitation of a forum market supports jurisdiction)
- J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011) (focus on defendant’s actions in purposefully availing itself of the forum)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts foundational precedent for personal jurisdiction)
- Mucha v. Wagner, 378 N.C. 167 (2021) (N.C. Supreme Court: defendant need only have known or reasonably should have known that its acts established a connection with North Carolina)
- Cambridge Homes of N.C. Ltd. P’ship v. Hyundai Constr., Inc., 194 N.C. App. 407 (2008) (injection of products into stream of commerce alone insufficient to establish purposeful availment)