Myra Dickert v. Sanyo Energy (U.S.A.) Corporation, 3:18-cv-04664

Background

Plaintiffs Myra and Howard Dickert purchased Sanyo solar panels in 2005 based on installer (GeoGenix) representations and a Sanyo spec sheet indicating a 20-year power-output warranty; they did not receive Sanyo’s full written Limited Warranty until after filing suit.
Plaintiffs discovered panel failures (delamination) in or about 2016 and submitted warranty claims; Sanyo/Panasonic replaced only some panels and required Plaintiffs to provide power-output test data for others.
Plaintiffs allege Sanyo/Panasonic deployed a warranty-claims-suppression strategy, delayed responses (about 18 months), and failed to remedy defects; they sent a CLRA demand letter on July 18, 2018 and sued on August 2, 2018 asserting breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and consumer-protection claims under California and New Jersey law.
Procedurally, Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint; the court allowed limited jurisdictional discovery to determine whether it had personal jurisdiction over Panasonic (post-2015 successor to Sanyo NA).
Jurisdictional discovery showed warranty claims for Sanyo panels were processed by Panasonic staff in Oregon (final approvals in Japan), Plaintiffs’ claims were handled outside California, and a July 2018 letter sent to a closed Cupertino address was merely forwarded by a Mountain View office to Panasonic counsel in New Jersey.
The court concluded Panasonic did not purposefully avail itself of California for warranty processing and therefore dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has specific personal jurisdiction over Panasonic	Panasonic inherited Sanyo’s California contacts and processed warranty matters tied to California consumers, so jurisdiction exists	Panasonic’s warranty operations (processing and decision-making) occur in Oregon and Japan after the 2015 merger; contacts with California are insufficient	Dismissed: no specific personal jurisdiction over Panasonic
Whether successor-liability/contact attribution supports jurisdiction	Panasonic, as Sanyo’s successor, should inherit Sanyo’s contacts with California	Predecessor contacts are attributable only if the successor would be liable for predecessor’s acts; Plaintiffs’ alleged misconduct post-dates the merger, so no predecessor liability to inherit	Rejected: successor theory fails because alleged misconduct occurred after merger and no Sanyo liability is pled
Whether Panasonic’s relocation/closure of California offices constitutes purposeful availment	Closing Sanyo’s California claim centers is an affirmative California act supporting jurisdiction	Closing/relocating operations away from California undermines, not establishes, purposeful availment; no evidence the closure was done in California or tied to suppression policy	Rejected: closure is not purposeful availment and does not establish jurisdiction
Whether case should be dismissed on other grounds (statute of limitations, pre-suit notice)	Plaintiffs argued merits and timeliness in FAC	Defendants raised alternative 12(b)(6) defenses (time-bar, lack of pre-suit notice)	Court did not reach merits/12(b)(6) defenses after finding lack of personal jurisdiction; case dismissed on Rule 12(b)(2) grounds

Key Cases Cited

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (establishes forum-contact tests and purposeful availment/specific jurisdiction framework)
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts standard under due process)
Morrill v. Scott Fin. Corp., 873 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2017) (distinguishes general versus specific jurisdiction and explains contact requirements)
Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008) (applies purposeful availment analysis where contract claims predominate)
Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (if plaintiff fails first jurisdictional step, inquiry ends)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for plausibility under Rule 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (limits conclusory allegations in pleading to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977) (court may disregard allegations contradicted by evidence in jurisdictional inquiry)
Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff cannot rest on bare allegations in jurisdictional challenge)