AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY as subrogee of SRI International v. GETFPV LLC, et al.
Civil Action No. 24-8922 (ZNQ) (RLS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
April 14, 2025
QURAISHI, District Judge
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
QURAISHI, District Judge
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Defendant GetFPV LLC (“GetFPV“) and Lumenier LLC (“Lumenier“) (collectively, “Defendants“) (the “Motion,” ECF No. 11). Defendants filed a brief in support of the Motion (“Moving Br.,” ECF No. 11-3) and various exhibits including a certification of Andy Graber, the Vice President of eCommerce at Lumenier (“Graber Certification,” ECF No. 11-2). Plaintiff American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (“Plaintiff” or “American Guarantee“) filed an opposition brief (“Opp‘n Br.,” ECF No. 13) and various exhibits including a certification of counsel (ECF No. 13-1), a picture of a LinkedIn profile of a former employee of non-party subrogor SRI International (ECF No. 13-2), a copy of an email/shipping confirmation from GetFPV (ECF No. 13-3), copies of pages from GetFPV‘s website (ECF No. 13-4), and information about GetFPV from the Delaware Secretary of State (ECF No. 13-5). Defendants filed a reply brief. (“Reply Br.,” ECF No. 17.) The Court has carefully considered the parties’
I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2
A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND3
Plaintiff brings its claims as subrogee of SRI International4, its insured, against GetFPV, Lumenier, and Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon“). (See generally Am. Compl.) Plaintiff is a New York corporation who conducts business in New Jersey. (Id. ¶ 1.) GetFPV is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in Sarasota, Florida. (Id. ¶ 2.) GetFPV is “a product seller, retailer, and/or distributor that . . . ships products throughout the United States.” (Id.) Lumenier is a limited liability company formed under the laws of Delaware with a principal place of business in Florida. (Id. ¶ 3.) Lumenier is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lumenier Holdco LLC, whose sole member is a Delaware C-Corporation. (Graber Certification ¶¶ 4, 5.) GetFPV is also a wholly owned subsidiary of Lumenier Holdco LLC. (Id. ¶ 3.) Amazon, although not involved in this Motion, is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Washington. (Id. ¶ 4.)
Lumenier also designs, manufactures, assembles, sells, or otherwise distributes lithium polymer batteries on the GetFPV website. (Id. ¶ 16.) These batteries are used to charge the binoculars and could themselves be charged by the Toolkit RC battery packs. (See generally id. ¶¶ 16–17.) On another occasion, Hendrix purchased two Lumenier batteries from the GetFPV website for use with the binoculars. (Id. ¶ 17.) Those batteries were subsequently shipped to Eric Braddom (“Braddom“), in Yardley, Pennsylvania. (Id.)5
In August 2023, an SRI International employee was using the charging pack from Toolkit RC to charge one of the Lumenier battery packs when the battery pack suddenly failed, causing a fire and resulting in damage to SRI International‘s New Jersey facility. (Id. ¶ 18.) To be clear,
B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff filed its original complaint on September 3, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) On September 23, 2024, only GetFPV and Lumenier filed the present Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 11.) Thereafter, Defendant Amazon filed a pre-motion letter pursuant to the undersigned‘s judicial preferences stating its grounds for an anticipated motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff responded to Amazon‘s letter, noting that it would file an amended complaint to address Amazon‘s concerns. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff then filed its Amended Complaint (ECF No. 23), and Amazon answered and filed a third-party complaint against a party not involved in this Motion (ECF No. 24).
The Amended Complaint alleges two counts. Relevant here, Count One asserts a products liability claim against Lumenier and GetFPV for selling and manufacturing a defective product that directly and proximately caused a fire at SRI International‘s New Jersey facility. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 29, 30.) According to the Amended Complaint, Lumenier and GetFPV “are strictly liable for the fire and resulting losses.”6 (Id. ¶ 31.)
II. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to
“A federal court sitting in New Jersey has jurisdiction over parties to the extent provided under New Jersey state law.” Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93, 96 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing
“There are two distinct theories under which personal jurisdiction can arise: general and specific.” Allaham v. Naddaf, 635 F. App‘x 32, 37–38 (3d Cir. 2015) (citing Grimes v. Vitalink Commc‘ns Corp., 17 F.3d 1553, 1559 (3d Cir. 1994)). “A court has general jurisdiction when a defendant has ‘continuous and systematic’ contacts with the forum state.” Id. (quoting O‘Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312, 317 (3d Cir. 2007)).
The inquiry as to whether a court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is tripartite. See O‘Connor, 496 F.3d at 317. First, “the defendant must have ‘purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum.‘” Id. (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958)). “[I]t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Hanson, 357 U.S. at 253. The contacts must be the defendant‘s own choice and not “random, isolated, or fortuitous.” Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984); see Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 359 (2021) (stating that for specific personal jurisdiction, the defendant must have “deliberately ‘reached out beyond’ its home” (quoting Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014))). The unilateral activity of a third party cannot satisfy the requirement that the defendant have minimum contacts with the forum state. See Hanson, 357 U.S. at 253 (noting that the mere “unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a non-resident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State“).
Second, if there is purposeful availment by a non-resident defendant, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over that defendant only when a plaintiff‘s claims “arise out of or relate to the defendant‘s contacts” with the forum state. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct., 582 U.S. 255, 262 (2017); Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984).
Third, if the non-resident defendant purposefully avails itself, and the plaintiff‘s claims arise out of or relate to the defendant‘s contacts with the forum state, “due process requires . . . that the maintenance of the suit [against the defendant] does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.‘” Int‘l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316 (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). And in determining whether the requirement to comport with “fair play and substantial justice” is satisfied, the court must consider the burden on the defendant, the interests of the forum State, and the plaintiff‘s interest in obtaining relief. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 480 U.S. 102, 113 (1987). It must also weigh “the interstate judicial system‘s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.” Id. (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292 (1980)).
IV. PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS
In the Motion, Defendants argue that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over them because they are neither citizens of New Jersey nor have sufficient minimum contacts with New Jersey. (Moving Br. at 4.) Defendants contend that maintaining a website that is accessible in New Jersey is insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction. (Id. at 8.) Defendants argue that they did not target New Jersey; “[a]t most, Defendants maintain a website that permits individuals from New Jersey to make purchases.” (Id. at 10.) Defendants also assert that the presence of the batteries in New Jersey was the result of fortuitous activities by non-parties and not Defendants’ purposeful actions. (Id.) Additionally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff‘s claims do not arise out of or relate to their contacts with New Jersey because the “incident at issue is not the product of a sale to New Jersey, advertising in New Jersey, or any business by Defendants in New Jersey.” (Id. at 12.) Lastly, Defendants argue that exercising jurisdiction over them would violate due process
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that GetFPV‘s purportedly “passive” internet presence in New Jersey is sufficient to confer specific personal jurisdiction over it because its website was interactive. (Opp‘n Br. at 8.) According to Plaintiff, Defendants’ purposeful availment is evident by GetFPV‘s website that allows New Jersey residents to fill out order forms and have the purchased products shipped to New Jersey, even though that is not what happened here. (Id. at 14.)7 Plaintiff contends therefore that Defendants knowingly placed their products into the stream of commerce and there is personal jurisdiction over them in New Jersey. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff also argues that its claims arise out of or relate to Defendants’ minimum contacts because Defendants solicited sales in New Jersey, and it was foreseeable that they could be brought to New Jersey to defend a lawsuit. (Id. at 12.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the “Court must not look at whether the product GetFPV sold ended up in New Jersey as the result of a fortuitous event. Instead, the Court must look at GetFPV‘s contacts with New Jersey and decide if the suit arises out of or relates to those contacts.” (Id. at 14.) As a final point, Plaintiff argues that exercising jurisdiction over Defendants comports with due process because New Jersey has an interest in protecting its citizens
V. ANALYSIS
There is no dispute that this Court lacks general personal jurisdiction over Defendants. (See Opp‘n Br. at 7–8.) Therefore, the Court considers only specific personal jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, the Court agrees with Defendants that on the present record, the Court does not have specific personal jurisdiction over them but that limited jurisdictional discovery is warranted.
A. PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT
To begin, there are no allegations in the Amended Complaint that Defendants specifically targeted New Jersey. The Amended Complaint provides that “GetFPV LLC is a product seller, retailer, and/or distributor that operates the website GetFPV.com and ships products throughout the United States and internationally.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 2.) This sole allegation pertaining to GetFPV‘s online presence in New Jersey is broad and conclusory and, without more, does not support the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction.9 Rinaldi v. FCA US LLC, Civ. No. 22-00886, 2022 WL 17340667, at *4 (D.N.J. Nov. 30, 2022) (“general allegations of marketing within the state, without more, do not support exercise of specific jurisdiction“); Oyebanji v. Palmetto Vacation Rentals LLC, Civ. No. 20-8983, 2021 WL 3732883, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug. 20, 2021)
On the facts alleged, Defendants’ internet presence in New Jersey is likely insufficient to allow the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction. See Toys “R” Us, 318 F.3d at 457 (addressing the standard for personal jurisdiction based on the presence of a website and holding that when a defendant website “operator intentionally targets the site to the forum state, and/or knowingly conducts business with forum state residents via the site, then the purposeful availment requirement is satisfied“). Notably, the “mere operation of a commercially interactive website should not subject the operator to jurisdiction anywhere in the world. Rather, there must be evidence that the defendant ‘purposefully availed’ itself of conducting activity in the forum state, by directly targeting its website to the state, knowingly interacting with residents of the forum state via its web site, or through sufficient other related contacts.” Corigliano v. Classic Motor, Inc., 611 F. App‘x 77, 80 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting Toys “R” Us, 318 F.3d at 454). Put differently, “there must be ‘something more’ . . . to demonstrate that the defendant directed its activity towards the forum state.” Desktop Techs., Inc. v. Colorworks Reprod. & Design, Civ. No. 98-5029, 1999 WL 98572, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 25, 1999) (quoting Panavision Int‘l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1322 (9th Cir. 1998)).10
In response to this Motion, Plaintiff attaches Hendrix‘s GetFPV order confirmation which is insufficient to demonstrate a purposeful contact with New Jersey because it shows that GetFPV
On this record, it is not clear whether there is “something more” for this Court to consider before determining whether it has specific personal jurisdiction as to Defendants. This would include indications that GetFPV‘s website 1) specifically and intentionally targets New Jersey or its residents, and 2) knowingly interacts with New Jersey residents in a way to exercise personal jurisdiction so as to comport with due process. Corigliano, 611 F. App‘x at 80; Zippo, 952 F. Supp. at 1124; Toys “R” Us, 318 F.3d at 452 (emphasizing the intentional nature of website interactivity for purposes of purposeful availment); Lozinski v. Black Bear Lodge, LLC, Civ. No. 16-7963, 2017 WL 1380416, at *1 (D.N.J. Apr. 10, 2017) (holding that the defendant resort did not purposefully direct activities toward New Jersey by operating its website or contracting with the plaintiffs). The Court therefore finds jurisdictional discovery is warranted. See N. Am. Elite Ins. Co. v. Gen. Aviation Flying Serv., Inc, Civ. No. 18-14575, 2020 WL 1502309, at *6 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2020).
B. ARISE OUT OF OR RELATE TO
Jurisdictional discovery is also appropriate to discern to what extent Plaintiff‘s claims arise out of or relate to Defendants’ contacts. It is well established that the forum state may exercise
Here, like in Ford, the products in this case were not purchased by a forum resident nor were the products shipped to the forum. In fact, the purchase at issue in this case was made by Hendrix whose billing address indicated that he was from New York, and the products were ultimately shipped to Braddom in Pennsylvania. (Am. Compl. ¶ 17; ECF No. 13-3.) Consequently, based on the facts alleged, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to satisfy the “arise out of” (i.e, causation) formulation of the test. However, as Ford has clarified, the “relates to” part of the test may be satisfied if a company serves a forum and the alleged defective product causes injury in that forum. See Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at 363. The same jurisdictional discovery the Court believes appropriate for an informed analysis of “purposeful availment” should also clarify the relatedness issue by developing the record as to whether Defendants advertised, marketed, or
As a practical matter, Lumenier‘s contacts with New Jersey appear to be more attenuated than GetFVP‘s contacts. The parties’ briefing as to Lumenier is scant. It is therefore unclear to what extent Lumenier participates in GetFVP‘s marketing, sales, and transactions with New Jersey. To further develop the record, the Court finds that it is appropriate, and not substantially prejudicial to Lumenier, for jurisdictional discovery as to Luminier as well. For these reasons, the Court will direct jurisdictional discovery, limited to what is needed to assess whether Plaintiff‘s claim relates to Defendants’ contacts with New Jersey.
C. JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY
A court should “ordinarily allow [limited jurisdictional discovery] when a plaintiff‘s claim to personal jurisdiction is not clearly frivolous,” Shuker v. Smith & Nephew, PLC, 885 F.3d 760, 781 (3d Cir. 2018) (internal quotations omitted), although “jurisdictional discovery is not available merely because the plaintiff requests it.” Lincoln Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 108 n.38 (3d Cir. 2015). Rather, “[i]f the plaintiff presents factual allegations that suggest ‘with reasonable particularity’ the possible existence of the requisite ‘contacts between [the party] and the forum state,’ the plaintiff‘s right to conduct jurisdictional discovery should be sustained.” Eurofins Pharma US Holdings v. BioAlliance Pharma SA, 623 F.3d 147, 157 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Toys “R” Us, 318 F.3d at 455). The Third Circuit has required a “relatively modest showing” for jurisdictional discovery and has deemed discovery appropriate where the defendant is a corporation or limited liability company, like here. Metcalfe, 566 F.3d at 336; N. Am. Elite Ins. Co., 2020 WL 1502309, at *7. Notably, however, in setting the scope of such jurisdictional discovery, the Court must be mindful that “[j]urisdictional discovery is not a license for the parties
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff‘s claims are not clearly frivolous and additional facts may support Plaintiff‘s assertion of specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Compagnie Des Bauxites de Guinee v. L‘Union Atlantique S.A. d‘Assurances, 723 F.2d 357, 362 (3d Cir. 1983) (“the district court should ordinarily allow discovery on jurisdiction in order to aid the plaintiff in discharging that burden.“).11 Accordingly, the Court will grant the parties 60 days to complete jurisdictional discovery, limited to Defendants’ purposeful contacts with New Jersey and whether Plaintiff‘s claims arise out of or relate to Defendants’ contacts. The parties will be instructed to meet and confer and submit a joint letter proposing a schedule for that discovery and for supplemental briefing thereafter. To the extent a hearing may be required, the parties’ joint letter is to propose dates for that hearing.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court will DENY Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 11). This denial is without prejudice to Defendants’ right to renew their motion upon completion of jurisdictional discovery, if appropriate. For clarity, should Defendants elect to renew their motion, no pre-motion letter will be required. An appropriate Order will follow.
Date: April 14, 2025
s/ Zahid N. Quraishi
ZAHID N. QURAISHI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE