Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 20STCV17411 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 20STCV17411, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV17411 Hearing Date: October 13, 2022 Dept: SEC

HERNANDEZ v. PUFFS SMOKE SHOP

CASE NO.: 20STCV17411

HEARING: 10/13/22

TENTATIVE ORDER

Specially Appearing Defendant LG CHEM, LTD.’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give Notice

The Requests for Judicial Notice are GRANTED. (Cal. Ev. Code §452.)

This products liability action was filed by Plaintiff ANDREW HERNANDEZ (“Plaintiff”) on May 7, 2020. Plaintiff alleges he was severely injured when an 18650 lithium-ion battery he bought from a vape shop suddenly exploded in his pants pocket. Plaintiff is suing LG Chem, Ltd., the manufacturer of the 18650 batteries, for negligence and product liability.

Specially appearing defendant LG CHEM, LTD. (“LG Chem”) moves to quash Plaintiff’s service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to CCP §418.10(a)(1).

When a nonresident defendant/cross-defendant challenges jurisdiction, the plaintiff/cross-complainant has the initial burden of establishing the fact of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. (Jewish Defense Org. v. Sup. Ct. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1054-1055.) This burden must be met by competent evidence in affidavits and authenticated documentary evidence. (Id. at 1055.)

LG Chem is a South Korean corporation with its principal place of business in South Korea. As such, LG Chem contends it is not subject to general or specific jurisdiction in California. In support, LG Chem proffers the declaration testimony of its authorized agent Hwi Jae Lee, which states: “LG Chem never manufactured, distributed, advertised, or sold 18650 lithium ion cells directly to consumers as standalone, replaceable batteries. The 18650 lithium ion cells LG Chem manufactured are industrial component parts; they are not standalone, replaceable consumer batteries, and they were net designed to be handled by consumers. [¶] LG Chem never distributed, marketed, advertised, or sold 18650 lithium ion cells directly to consumers as standalone, replaceable batteries. LG Chem never authorized any manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, retailer, re-seller, or any other individual or entity to distribute, market, advertise, or sell lithium ion cells directly to consumers as standalone, replaceable batteries.” (Lee Decl., ¶¶14-15.)

In Opposition, Plaintiff maintains this Court can exercise specific jurisdiction over LG Chem because LG Chem has extensive and systematic contacts with the state of California related to its lithium-ion battery business and makes significant efforts to serve the market for its batteries in California. Plaintiff also indicates that other Courts have previously found that LG Chem is subject to California’s personal jurisdiction in different cases involving similar facts. Plaintiff does not argue that this Court can exercise general jurisdiction over LG Chem. (See Opp. p.5, fn. 1.)

“If the nonresident defendant does not have substantial and systematic contacts in the forum sufficient to establish general jurisdiction, [it] still may be subject to the specific jurisdiction of the forum, if the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of the forum benefits [citation], and the ‘controversy is related to or ‘arises out of’ a defendant’s contacts with the forum.’ [Citations.]” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 446.) “The test for whether a court may exercise ‘specific’ personal jurisdiction requires that the nonresident purposefully directed his acts to the forum state or otherwise purposefully established contacts with the forum state, that the cause of action be related to or arise or result from the acts or contacts in the forum, and that the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the forum would be reasonable.” (Muckle v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 218, 227-228.) The “purposeful availment requirement ensures that a defendant will not be hailed into a jurisdiction solely as a result of ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ contacts [citations], or of the unilateral activity of another party or a third person. [Citations.]” (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472-473.)

Recent California case law, LG Chem, Ltd. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (“Lawhon”) (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 348 held that the Court did not have specific jurisdiction over LG Chem on a consumer claim involving a vape/lithium ion battery where the evidence showed that LG Chem sold batteries to three California companies in the electric vehicle industry for use in electric vehicles. The Court reasoned that there had to be a connection between the purposeful availment, and the specific claim asserted in the case.

Here, LG Chem proffers evidence establishing that, in the three years preceding the Subject Accident, LG Chem only sold 18650 lithium ion cells in California to original equipment manufacturers and battery packers—sophisticated companies that encased the lithium ion cells with protective circuitry and were not authorized to sell the cells directly to individual consumers for use as standalone batteries. (Yoon Decl., Ex. E., Answers 5, 21-24.)

The facts of this case are analogous to the Lawhon case. The Court does not find that LG Chem’s contacts with California are sufficiently connected with Plaintiff’s alleged injury to establish specific jurisdiction over LG Chem.

Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections and Motion to Strike the Declaration of Hwi Jae Lee is OVERRULED.

LG Chem’s Evidentiary Objections are OVERRULED.