NINTH CIRCUIT LIMITS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER
FOREIGN PARENT CORPORATION AND REQUIRES PRODUCT
DEFECT TO RESULT IN SAFETY HAZARD
By Lilian M. Loh
Last week in Williams v. Yamaha (No. 15-55924),1
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
district court’s two separate rulings in favor of
defendants: dismissal of Japanese corporation,
Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. (“YMC”), for lack of
personal jurisdiction and dismissal of plaintiffs’
consumer fraud claims against Yamaha Motor
Corporation, U.S.A. (“YMUS”) under FRCP 12(b)(6).
The Ninth Circuit found that no general or specific
jurisdiction could be extended to YMC and that
appellants had failed to adequately plead against
YMUS that the alleged defect produced an
unreasonable safety hazard.
Procedural History
In July 2013, plaintiff/appellant George Williams
filed suit against defendants/appellees Japanese
parent YMC and its U.S. subsidiary YMUS, alleging
violations of federal and state warranty law and
other claims. The suit was consolidated with two
similar actions. Appellants purchased outboard
boat motors that YMC designed and manufactured
1Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co., No. 15-55924, 2017 WL
1101095, at *1 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2017).
in Japan and that YMUS imported and marketed in
California. Appellants alleged that the motors
contained a design defect that caused premature
corrosion in the motors’ dry exhaust system, that
appellees knew of the defect prior to the sales, and
that the defect posed an unreasonable safety
hazard.
On August 19, 2014, the district court dismissed
Japan-based YMC for lack of personal jurisdiction.
In a separate ruling, the district court dismissed
plaintiffs’ claims for breach of warranty and unjust
enrichment against YMUS. On April 29, 2015, the
district court granted YMUS’s fifth m otion to
dismiss, ruling that appellants failed to prove that
YMUS had presale knowledge of the alleged defect
and dismissed the remaining claims that YMUS
violated California consumer protection laws.
Appellants appealed both rulings.
No General Jurisdiction Over YMC
The Ninth Circuit found that YMC did not have
sufficient contacts with California for general
jurisdiction to be established. Appellants failed to
submit evidence to support that YMC was “at
MARCH
2017
P R O D U C T L I A B I L I T Y
A L E R T
