Griffith v. LG Chem Am.

1

315 Neb. 892

John Edward Griffith II and Christina M. Griffith, appellants, v. LG Chem America, Inc., and Shoemaker's Truck Station, Inc., doing business as Shoemaker's Shell Travel Center and E-Titan, LLC, appellees.

No. S-22-840

Supreme Court of Nebraska

February 9, 2024

1. Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. An appellate court affirms a lower court's grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

2.___ ____. An appellate court reviews the district court's grant of sum mary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.

3. Motions to Dismiss: Jurisdiction: Pleadings Evidence. When a trial court relies solely on pleadings and supporting affidavits in ruling on a motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction to survive the motion. However, if the court holds an evidentiary hearing on the issue or decides the matter after trial, then the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.

4. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. An appellate court examines the question of whether the nonmoving party has established a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction de novo.

5. Motions to Dismiss: Appeal and Error. In reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss, an appellate court must look at the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all factual conflicts in favor of that party.

6. Limitations of Actions: States. Nebraska has adopted the Uniform Conflict of Laws Limitations Act, Neb Rev. Stat. §§ 25-3201 through 25-3207 (Reissue 2016). Under the act, if a claim is based on the substantive law of Nebraska, then Nebraska's statute of limitations will apply. If a claim is substantively based upon the law of another state, however, then the limitation period of the other state will apply.

7. Courts: Jurisdiction: States. Before entangling itself in messy issues of conflict of laws, a court ought to satisfy itself that there actually is a difference between the relevant laws of the different states.

8. Jurisdiction: States. In conflict-of-law analysis, an actual conflict exists when a legal issue is resolved differently under the law of two states.

9. Torts: Appeal and Error. To resolve conflicts of law that sound in tort law, courts apply the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 146 (1971).

10. Jurisdiction: States. When there are no factual disputes regarding state contacts, conflict-of-law issues present questions of law.

11. Jurisdiction: Words and Phrases. Personal jurisdiction is the power of a tribunal to subject and bind a particular entity to its decisions.

12. Constitutional Law: Due Process: Jurisdiction. The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution limits a state court's power to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant. It protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he or she has established no meaningful contacts, ties, or relations.

13. Jurisdiction: States. The constitutional touchstone for personal jurisdiction over a nonresident is whether the defendant purposefully established minimum contacts in the forum state.

14. ____: ___. The minimum contacts requirement protects the defendant against litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum and ensures that states do not exceed the limits imposed by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.

15. Jurisdiction. There are two kinds of personal jurisdiction: general (sometimes called all-purpose) jurisdiction and specific (sometimes called case-linked) jurisdiction.

16. ____. A state court may exercise general jurisdiction only when a defendant is essentially at home in the state.

17. Jurisdiction: States. To be subject to specific personal jurisdiction of a state, a nonresident defendant must take some act by which it purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, and the plaintiff's claims must arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum.

18. Due Process: Jurisdiction: States. The benchmark for determining if the exercise of personal jurisdiction satisfies due process is whether the defendant's minimum contacts with the forum state are such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.

19.____: ____: _____. The analysis of whether the defendant's minimum contacts with the forum state are such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there is not simply mechanical or quantitative, but requires that a court consider the quality and nature of the defendant's activities to ascertain whether the defendant has the necessary minimum contacts with the forum to satisfy due process.

20. Jurisdiction: Words and Phrases. For specific personal jurisdiction, there must be a substantial connection between the defendant's contacts with the forum state and the operative facts of the litigation.

21. Jurisdiction: Time. The requisite minimum contacts must exist either at the time the cause of action arose, at the time the suit was filed, or within a reasonable period of time immediately prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

22. Jurisdiction: States. Contacts with the forum state unrelated to the action have no bearing on a specific personal jurisdiction analysis.

23.____: ____. It is essential to personal jurisdiction that in each case 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.

24.____: ____. There must be fair warning that a particular activity might subject the nonresident defendant to the jurisdiction of the foreign sovereign, giving a degree of predictability to the legal system by allowing potential defendants to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit.

25. ____: ____. Unilateral activity of a plaintiff who claims some relation ship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state.

Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: Lori A. Maret, Judge.

Christopher P. Welsh, of Welsh &Welsh, P.C., L.L.O., for appellants.

Mark A. Fahleson, of Rembolt Ludtke, L.L.P., for appellee LG Chem America, Inc.

Matthew V. Rusch, of Erickson | Sederstrom, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee Shoemaker's Truck Station, Inc. Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Miller-Lerman, J.

NATURE OF CASE

John Edward Griffith II purchased two lithium-ion rechargeable batteries at a Shoemaker's Shell Travel Center store in Lincoln, Nebraska. Several months later, when he was at his home in Sharpsville, Pennsylvania, the batteries exploded and combusted in his pocket. John Griffith and his spouse, Christina M. Griffith, filed suit in the district court for Lancaster County, Nebraska, against LG Chem, Ltd., the lithium-ion batteries' South Korean manufacturer and distributor; LG Chem America, Inc. (LGCAI), the manufacturer's American distributor; Shoemaker's Truck Station, Inc. (Shoemaker's), the owners of the travel center; and E-Titan, LLC, the owners of an electronic cigarette kiosk from which the batteries were bought.

LG Chem was dismissed for lack of service. The district court determined, inter alia, that the Griffiths' claims for negligence were not timely under Pennsylvania's 2-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions and granted summary judgment and dismissed all claims against Shoemaker's and E-Titan. Subsequently, the district court determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction over LGCAI and dismissed LGCAI. The Griffiths appeal. We affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

John Griffith purchased two 18650 lithium-ion rechargeable battery cells (18650 batteries) on November 6, 2015, from an electronic cigarette kiosk that was owned and operated by E-Titan and that was located inside the travel center owned by Shoemaker's. E-Titan is a Nebraska corporation with its principal place of business in Grand Island, Nebraska. Shoemaker's is a Nebraska corporation with its principal place of business in Lincoln. The Griffiths allege that the 18650 batteries were designed and manufactured by LG Chem, a Korean corporation, and distributed by its American subsidiary, LGCAI.

On March 12, 2016, John Griffith was injured while replacing two 18650 batteries in his electronic cigarette. He was carrying the batteries in his pocket when they exploded and burst into flames, resulting in serious burns to his body and other permanent injuries.

On June 27, 2019, the Griffiths filed suit against LG Chem, LGCAI, Shoemaker's, and E-Titan in Nebraska in the district court for Lancaster County. The Griffiths claimed negligence, products liability (defective design and manufacturing defect), breach of warranty, and loss of consortium by Christina Griffith. LG Chem was never served with summons in the district court and, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217 (Reissue 2016), was dismissed as a matter of law in December 2019.

Motion For Summary Judgment Against

Shoemaker's and E-Titan.

Shoemaker's and E-Titan moved for summary judgment on the basis that the Griffiths' claims against them were time barred under the 2-year limitation period provided by a Pennsylvania statute of...