Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case 21STCV28318 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21STCV28318, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28318 Hearing Date: December 5, 2022 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: December 5, 2022¿¿

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 21STCV28318

¿¿

CASE NAME: Luther Carroll v. TGI Vape, et al.

¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Specially Appearing Defendant, LG Chem, LTD.’s

¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Luther Carrol

¿¿

TRIAL DATE: None set¿

¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Specially Appearing Defendant, LG Chem, LTD.’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED. The Court finds persuasive the reasoning and analysis of a very recent Fourth District decision in LG Chem, Ltd. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 348, rather than the federal district court opinions referenced in Plaintiff’s opposition and declarations.

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

This case is based on Plaintiff, Luthor Carroll (“Plaintiff”) allegedly being injured when his vaping device, which contained an “LGC 18650 Lithium-Ion Battery,” exploded and burned him. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 24–25.) Plaintiff allegedly purchased the 18650-battery cell from Defendant 559 Cigarettes and More. (Id. at ¶ 24.) Plaintiff’s vaporizer was allegedly designed and manufactured by Defendant VGod, LLC (“VGod”), and Plaintiff allegedly purchased the vaporizer from Defendant TGI Vape. (Ibid.)

LG Chem is a Korean company with its headquarters and principal offices in Seoul, South Korea. (Choi Decl. ¶ 6.) LG Chem manufactured 18650 lithium-ion battery cells for use by sophisticated companies in specific applications, such as power tools, where the cells are encased in a battery pack with protective circuitry. (Id. at ¶ 9.)

B. Procedural

On December 9, 2021, Specially Appearing Defendant, LG Chem, LTD file this Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. On June 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition to LG Chem’s Motion. On June 10, 2022, Specially Appearing Defendant filed a reply brief. On August 3, 2022, Specially Appearing Defendant filed an ex parte application for an order allowing supplemental briefing. The Court approved of this in a minute order on August 4, 2022. On August 18, 2022, Specially Appearing Defendant filed a supplemental brief in support of its Motion to Quash. On August 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition. Plaintiff did not file or serve a supplemental opposition to LG Chem’s motion to supplemental briefing for its motion to quash.

¿II. MOVING PARTY’S GROUNDS FOR MOTION TO QUASH¿¿

Specially Appearing Defendant, LG Chem, moves for this motion to quash service of summons because it claims that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it.

III. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Evidence

Sustained: 27

Overruled: 1-26, 28-37

IV. ANALYSIS¿

¿¿

LG Chem moves for an order quashing Plaintiff’s purported service of summons and complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10, subdivision (a)(1) on the grounds that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over LG Chem. LG Chem subsequently provided a supplemental brief in support of its motion to quash in which it provided a very recently published decision involving LG Chem where the Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred when it denied LG Chem’s motion to quash.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that it is indisputable that LG Chem shipped its 18650 lithium-ion batteries to and within the state of California, purposeful availing itself of the lithium-ion battery market in California and giving rise to this action under a stream of commerce theory. But even if LG Chem is found to have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting sales and other activity in California, there is a dispute between the parties as to whether the “relatedness” prong of the analysis of specific jurisdiction can be met here.

A. Legal Standard

Pursuant to the SCOTUS decision in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, the Court presaged the recognition of two personal jurisdiction categories that are today called “specific jurisdiction” --where the suit “arise[s] out of or relate[s] to the defendant's contacts with the forum” (Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414, n. 8) -- and “general jurisdiction,” exercisable when a foreign corporation's “continuous corporate operations within a state [are] so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities.” (id. at p. 318). (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 118.) A non-resident defendant may be subject to either general or specific jurisdiction. (See Elkman v. National States Insurance Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1314.) (“Where a nonresident defendant challenges jurisdiction by way of a motion to quash, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.”)¿¿

1. General Jurisdiction¿¿

General jurisdiction exists when a defendant is domiciled in the forum state or his activities there are substantial, continuous, and systematic. (F. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 782, 796.)¿¿¿¿ “A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign . . . corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.” (Daimler, supra, 571 U.S. at p. 132, 137-38.) ¿ The “paradigm” forums in which a corporate defendant is “at home,” are the corporation's place of incorporation and its principal place of business. (Id.) The exercise of general jurisdiction is not limited to the place of incorporation and its principal place of business; in an “exceptional case,” a corporate defendant's operations in another forum “may be so substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation at home in that State.” (BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1549, 1558.) In BNSF, even though the railroad defendant had over 2,000 miles of railroad track and more than 2,000 employees in Montana, that series of forum activities were not sufficient for the exercise of general jurisdiction. Similarly in Daimler, the SCOTUS held that notwithstanding the widespread and continuous activities of the German defendant’s American subsidiary in California were wide-ranging and continuous, it did not comport with Due Process to require Daimler to defend a lawsuit here under a general jurisdiction theory.

“The standard for establishing general jurisdiction is ‘fairly high,’ [citation] and requires that the defendant’s contacts be of the sort that approximate physical presence.” (Elkman, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at 1315 (emphasis in original).) “Factors to be taken into consideration are whether the defendant makes sales, solicits or engages in business in the state, serves the state’s markets, designates an agent for service of process, holds a license, or is incorporated there.” (Id.)¿¿ Plaintiff here concedes that it cannot require LG Chem to defend a lawsuit in California under a general jurisdiction theory, regardless of how many pounds of industrial products LG Chem ships to California ports as measured by bills of lading, or how many of its sealed battery packs find their way into electric vehicles or power tools sold in this state.

2. Specific Jurisdiction¿

“Where general jurisdiction cannot be established, a court may assume specific jurisdiction over a defendant in a particular case if the plaintiff shows the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits; [i.e.,] the nonresident purposefully directed its activities at forum residents or purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of local law.” (Hanson v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S. 235.) Specific jurisdiction involves a 3-part test in California. California courts adopt the same test as the test used by the court in Boschetto v. Hansing (9th Cir. Cal. 2008) 539 F.3d 1011, 1016: (1) The nonresident defendant must do some act or consummate some transaction with the forum or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-related activities; and (3) exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.” (Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen (9th Cir. 1998) 141 F.3d 1316, 1320 [applying California law].).” (Jewish Defense Organization, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. of Los Angeles County (Rambam) (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1054.)¿¿

¿¿

B. Discussion

1. General Jurisdiction¿¿

Per the moving papers, LG Chem provides that at all relevant times it was a Korean company with its headquarters and principal office in Seoul, South Korea. (Choi Decl. ¶ 6.)

Here, LG Chem argues that the there is no basis for exercising general jurisdiction over it because LG Chem does not have any continuous and systematic contacts with California that could render this an “exceptional case” under BNSF. (supra 137 S. Ct. at 1558.) In opposition, Plaintiff does not argue for general jurisdiction, but rather, asserts that that Court has specific jurisdiction over LG Chem. Plaintiff here concedes that it cannot require LG Chem to defend a lawsuit in California under a general jurisdiction theory, regardless of how many pounds of industrial products LG Chem ships to California ports as measured by bills of lading, or how many of its sealed battery packs find their way into Black and Decker power tools sold in this state.

2. Specific Jurisdiction¿

“Absent such extensive contacts [general jurisdiction], a defendant may be subject to specific jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction in an action arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum state.”¿ (HealthMarkets, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at 1167.)¿ “Specific jurisdiction depends on the quality and nature of the defendant's forum contacts in relation to the particular cause of action alleged.”¿ (Id.) “A nonresident defendant is subject to specific personal jurisdiction only if (1) the defendant purposefully availed itself of the benefits of conducting activities in the forum state; (2) the controversy arises out of or is related to the defendant's forum contacts; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable. (Id.; [citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 475-478 and Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269].) “Specific jurisdiction depends on the quality and nature of the defendant's forum contacts in relation to the particular cause of action alleged” (Id. [citing Cornelison v. Chaney (1976) 16 Cal.3d 143, 147–148]; see also Vons Cos., Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 447¿448.)¿ The Court of Appeal has restated this test in plainer language, explaining that courts test for specific jurisdiction “by examining the relationships between this litigation, these defendants, and California.”¿ (Dunne v. State of Florida (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1344.)¿ “These guidelines are not susceptible of mechanical application, and the jurisdictional rules are not clear-cut. Rather, a court must weigh the facts in each case to determine whether the defendant's contacts with the forum state are sufficient.”¿ (HealthMarkets at 1167 [citations omitted].)¿¿

Purposeful Availment

Here, LG Chem argues that Plaintiff cannot establish purposeful availment because the 18650 cell that allegedly injured Plaintiff could only have arrived in California as the result of unilateral actions of third parties unconnected to LG Chem. LG Chem claims that there is no other way the cell could have arrived in California because LG Chem never designed, manufactured, distributed, advertised, or sold 18650 lithium-ion cells for sale to or use by individual consumers as standalone, replaceable batteries; never conducted any business with 559 Cigarettes and More; never sold its 18650 cells to anyone to be distributed into a consumer market for standalone, replaceable lithium-ion batteries in California or anywhere else; and never authorized anyone to advertise, distribute, or sell LG 18650 lithium-ion cells for use by individual consumers as standalone, replaceable batteries in vaping devices or for any other purpose. (Choi Decl. ¶¶ 9-15.)

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that LG Chem purposefully availed itself of the 18650-battery market in California as it sold, shipped, and distributed its 18650 cells to its own subsidiaries, consignees in California, it conceded so and its import data reflects so. Moreover, Plaintiff asserts that per LG Chem’s own corporate representative, Shin, LG Chem knew these batteries were being used by individual consumers for uses like e-cigarettes or vapes as early as 2015 or 2016 and that they were causing fires and injuries like it did to Plaintiff here. (Plaintiff’s Opp. p. 14.) Plaintiff relies on the case of Berven v. LG Chem, Ltd., and has asked this Court to reference it in its analysis.

In Berven v. LG Chem, Ltd. the court examined the similar issues relevant to this case and in reading the product at issue to be LG Chem’s lithium-ion battery. Plaintiff argues that it should not be qualified by who the battery is to be used by or when, or how, or whether that use was authorized or not. The court in Berven did not agree with LG Chem’s excessively narrow definition of the “product” based on these qualifiers. Plaintiff asserts that similarly, the Court here should not because the actual dimensions of the 18650 cell or its features or power does not change based on who the product was intended for or who is considered “authorized” user per LG Chem. There, the court decided that the true relevant inquiry was whether LG Chem purposefully availed itself of 18650 battery market in California

But the Court does not agree with LG Chem's framing of the “product” as limited to a certain battery distributed in a certain way, for a certain use, in certain packaging. The method of distribution is not part of the definition of the product. Nor is the manner of use. When it comes to evaluating contacts for jurisdiction under case law, including Asahi’s stream of commerce plus test, the “product” is the product being sold, which, in the present case, is the 18650 battery.

No. 118CV01542DADEPG, 2019 WL 1746083, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 118CV01542DADEPG, 2019 WL 4687080 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2019).

Applying the same standard as the Berven court here, Plaintiff asserts that LG Chem purposefully availed itself of the 18650-battery market in California in general, with respect to sealed packs of battery clusters rather than individual, stand-alone batteries..

Sufficiently Related

Specific jurisdiction depends on the quality and nature of the defendant's forum contacts in relation to the particular cause of action alleged. [Citation.]” (Anglo Irish Bank Corp., PLC v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 969, 978.)¿

“A controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant's forum contacts, so as to satisfy the second requirement for the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction, if there is “a substantial connection between the forum contacts and the plaintiff's claim.” [Citation.] The forum contacts need not be the proximate cause or “but for” cause of the alleged injuries. [Citation.] The forum contacts also need not be “substantively relevant” to the cause of action, meaning those contacts need not establish or support an element of the cause of action. [Citation.] “A claim need not arise directly from the defendant's forum contacts in order to be sufficiently related to the contact to warrant the exercise of specific jurisdiction. Rather, as long as the claim bears a substantial connection to the nonresident's forum contacts, the exercise of specific jurisdiction is appropriate.” [Citation.] Accordingly, in evaluating the quality and nature of the defendant's forum contacts, we consider not only the conduct directly affecting the plaintiff, but also the broader course of conduct of which it is a part. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 979.)¿

Here, LG Chem argues that Plaintiff’s claims do not arise out of or relate to any purposeful contact LG Chem had with California. LG Chem argues that by selling an industrial component product to a sophisticated customer, LG Chem would not bargain for lawsuits by consumers injured because third parties sold that product for an unauthorized purpose—just as Bristol-Myers Squibb did not bargain for lawsuits by out-of-State plaintiffs by selling its product in the forum State. (Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1781.) In Bristol-Myers Squibb, the plaintiffs, many of whom were not California residents, sued a pharmaceutical drug manufacturer in California state court for alleged damages caused by the drug Plavix. The manufacturer was incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York. (Id. at p. 1775.) The United States Supreme Court held that the manufacturer’s decision to contract with a California distributor to distribute the drug nationally did not provide a sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction. (Id. at p. 1777 [“The bare fact that BMS contracted with a California distributor is not enough to establish personal jurisdiction in the State”].) Further, where the nonresidents “were not prescribed Plavix in California, did not purchase Plavix in California, did not ingest Plavix in California, and were not injured by Plavix in California,” there was no “connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue” even where “other plaintiffs were prescribed, obtained, and ingested Plavix in California” and “allegedly sustained the same injuries as did the nonresidents.” (Id. at p. 1781.) “‘[A] defendant’s relationship with a . . . third party, standing alone, is an insufficient basis for jurisdiction’ [citation.]” and where “all conduct giving rise to the . . . claims occurred elsewhere [,] it follows that the California courts cannot claim specific jurisdiction.” (Id. at pp. 1782.)

However, Plaintiff asserts that this case is more akin to Ford v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1017 for guidance. In Ford, the plaintiffs were residents of the forum state, and suffered injury in that state from the product. (Ford, 141 S.Ct. at 1023.) The United States Supreme Court declared that “[w]hen a company …serves a market for a product in a State and that product causes injury in the State to one of its residents, the State's courts may entertain the resulting suit.” Here, Plaintiff’s claim arises out of an 18650 lithium-ion battery. The same battery that Plaintiff asserts arises out of LG Chem’s forum-related contacts.

LG Chem argued in its moving papers that Ford is distinguishable from the case at bar because its contacts with the forum state were much stronger than LG Chem’s contacts. For example, Ford urged consumers in the forum state to purchase its products whereas, LG Chem did not design or manufacture 18650 lithium-ion cells for sale to individual consumers as standalone batteries and did not distribute, advertise, or sell 18650 lithium-ion cells directly to consumers.

However, it is the Court’s understanding that in the present case, LG Chem need not have contacts with the same level of relatedness to the injury as did the defendant in Ford. “A claim need not arise directly from the defendant’s forum contacts in order to be sufficiently related to the contact to warrant the exercise of specific jurisdiction.” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc.¿(1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 452.) “Rather, as long as the claim bears a substantial connection to the nonresident’s forum contacts, the exercise of specific jurisdiction is appropriate.” (Ibid.) In this case, Plaintiff has asserted facts to suggest that the correct relatedness consideration here is whether LG Chem sold the same kind of 18650 battery within California as the one that injured Plaintiff. Plaintiff has also suggested that the uncontroverted facts thus far demonstrate that LG Chem did sell this battery. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that LG Chem directly supplied 18650 lithium-ion batteries to California customers between the years of 2015-2018 and still does. Specifically, Plaintiff claims there were 49 shipments of lithium-ion of lithium-ion batteries to California ports directly from LG Chem. Plaintiff further asserts that this is not third-party or unauthorized conduct - this is LG Chem’s own direct contact with the state of California, as it relates to the exact product that is the subject of this litigation: an 18650 lithium-ion battery.

3. LG Chem, Ltd. v. Superior Court (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 348 (“Lawhon”)

LG Chem filed a supplement brief regarding the recent case of LG Chem, Ltd. v. Superior Court (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 348 (“Lawhon”). LG Chem argues that Lawhon contended “that specific jurisdiction can be exerted over LG Chem wherever it sold its 18650 batteries, even if, as here, it deliberately limited its sales to a narrow range of businesses and tailored these transactions to avoid a consumer market. Under his contention, there would potentially be personal jurisdiction over a company in a consumer’s product liability claim in any jurisdiction that is part of the product’s distribution chain. That goes too far.” (Lawhon, supra, 80 Cal.App.5th at p. 368, bolding added.) Accordingly, the Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying LG Chem’s motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction and enter a new order granting the motion to quash. (Id. at p. 374.)

The plaintiff in Lawhon, supra, 80 Cal.App.5th 348, “Ryan Lawhon, a California resident, alleged he was severely injured when an 18650 lithium-ion battery he bought from a San Diego vape shop suddenly exploded in his pocket.” (Id. at p. 354.) The jurisdictional facts were “not disputed: LG Chem sold 18650 batteries as industrial component products to original equipment manufacturers and battery packers who sell to original equipment manufacturers. It did not design, manufacture, distribute, advertise or sell the batteries for sale to or use by individual consumers as standalone, replaceable batteries.” (Id. at p. 354.) “In the two-year period leading up to Lawhon’s injury on February 7, 2019, LG Chem’s sales of 18650 batteries in California were to three companies in the electric vehicle industry[.]” (Id. at p. 357.)1 “[T]he number of batteries sold, and the dollars generated from these sales, were in the millions.” (Ibid.)

“In the trial court, Lawhon sought to dispatch his burden” of proving the second prong of the specific jurisdiction analysis—that his claims arise out of or relate to LG Chem’s purposeful contacts with California—“by merely demonstrating that ‘LG Chem is selling batteries into the California battery market and [he] was injured by a battery he purchased in California.’ His effort to establish a connection between LG Chem’s California activities and his product liability claims ended there. He argued, and the trial court agreed, ‘[t]hat alone should be sufficient to establish this prong of the [jurisdictional] test.” (Lawhon, supra, 80 Cal.App.5th at p. 365, original brackets.) “It is not.” (Lawhon, supra, 80 Cal.App.5th at p. 365, bolding added.) The Court of Appeal held “Lawhon’s alleged injury from an 18650-battery purchased at a vape shop, whose supply chain is unknown and unconnected to LG Chem, ‘“in no sense arise[s]”’ from LG Chem’s sales of 18650 batteries to three California companies in the electric vehicle industry for use in electric vehicles.” (Ibid., original brackets, quoting Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1779, quoting Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 783, 819 (dis. opn. of Werdegar, J.).) Nor did Lawhon establish “that those sales are ‘related enough’ to his product liability claims to permit the constitutional exercise of jurisdiction over LG Chem, in [his] specific suit.” (Lawhon, at p. 365, original italics, quoting Ford Motor, supra, 141 S.Ct. at p. 1031.)

Plaintiff submitted a supplemental briefing, attempting to distinguish Lawhon. The Court fins that LG Chem has the better of the argument on the persuasiveness of the Fourth District in that very similar case.

Plaintiff also argues that this Court should rely on Berven v. LG Chem, Ltd.. (E.D.Cal., Apr. 18, 2019, No. 1:18-CV-01542) 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66505 (“Berven”) report and recommendation adopted (E.D.Cal., Sept. 25, 2019) 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166041. (Opp. at 12:20–14:24.) In Berven, the plaintiff alleged she had been injured in California when an 18650-battery manufactured by LG Chem exploded in her e-cigarette. (See Berven, supra, [2019 WL 1746083, at p. 1.) The federal district court denied LG Chem’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to add jurisdictional allegations (Id. at 1, 14.) The proposed amended pleading at issue in Berven asserted that LG Chem provided lithium-ion batteries to distributors in California with the reasonable expectation that they would be used in California, and that LG Chem also sold 19650 batteries directly to consumers in California. The proposed amendment further asserted that LG Chem sold 18650 batteries to distributors with the expectation that such batteries would end up in electronic cigarette markets in California. The Court in Berven observed that allegations in the amended complaint were true for the purposes of the motion to dismiss and concluded that Plaintiff had established that California had specific jurisdiction over LG Chem under a stream of commerce theory.

In its supplemental briefing, LG Chem asserted that this Court should not that in federal court, t, “[u]controverted allegations in the complaint must be taken as true.” (Berven, supra, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66505, at *23.) California courts, on the other hand, properly do not “lighten plaintiffs’ burden of proof of jurisdictional facts” because “[t]hat burden of proof is grounded in constitutional guarantees of due process.” (Automobile Antitrust, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 113.) In California state courts, “a plaintiff must do more than make allegations. A plaintiff must support its allegations with ‘competent evidence of jurisdictional facts. Allegations in an unverified complaint are insufficient to satisfy this burden of proof.’” (Rivelli, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 393, quoting Automobile Antitrust, at p. 110.) As such, LG Chem has asserted that this Court should look askance at Berven.

Here, Honorable Judge Gary Y. Tanaka, in his August 29, 2022, minute order, granted a continuance to allow Plaintiff to conduct jurisdictional discovery to attempt to meet its burden to establish the existence of jurisdiction. Since then, Plaintiff has made no amendment to its complaint in attempt to meet its burden. In its opposition, Plaintiff has submitted that if this Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s evidence, Plaintiff requested jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiff notes that it intends to serve tailored requests for admission, interrogatories, and a deposition of LG Che’s Persons Most Qualified. However, there is no evidence thus far that Plaintiff has engaged in any of the following. Additionally, Defendant LG Chem noted in its November 14, 2022, filing that Plaintiff had not submitted a supplemental opposition.

It is this Court’s view that on the “relatedness” prong of a specific jurisdiction analysis, Plaintiff has failed to meet his threshold burden of establishing that the required connection exists between LG Chem's sales of 18650 batteries for use as industrial component parts in electric vehicles, and his injuries from a standalone 18650 battery purchased at a vape shop. As a result, the trial court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over LG Chem in this products liability case consistent with the Constitutions of California and the United States. The Court thus GRANTS LG Chem's motion to quash.