Yamashita v. LG Chem, Ltd.

48 F.4th 993

Matt YAMASHITA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. LG CHEM, LTD. ; LG Chem America, Inc., Defendants-Appellees,andCoilart; Gearbest.Com; Wa Fa La Inc.; Does, Doe LG Entities 1–10; John Does 1–10; Jane Does 1–10; Doe Corporations 1–10; Doe Partnerships 1–10; Doe Limited Liability Companies 1–10; Doe Business Entities 1–10; Doe Governmental Entities 1–10; Doe Unincorporated Associations 1–10, Defendants.

No. 20-17512

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted January 21, 2022 Honolulu, Hawaii

Filed September 8, 2022

Order by Judge O'Scannlain ;

Dissent by Judge Miller

ORDER CERTIFYING QUESTION TO THE HAWAII SUPREME COURT

O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:

ORDER

We certify to the Hawaii Supreme Court the questions of Hawaii law set forth in Part I of this order, pursuant to Hawaii Rule of Appellate Procedure 13. The answers to these questions are determinative of the cause pending before this court and there appears to be no clear controlling precedent in the Hawaii judicial decisions.

I

The questions to be answered are:

1. May a Hawaii court assert personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporate defendant if the plaintiff's injury "relates to," but does not "arise from," the defendant's in-state acts enumerated in Hawaii's general long-arm statute? Compare Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court , [––– U.S. ––––] 141 S. Ct. 1017 [209 L.Ed.2d 225] (2021), with Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634-35.

2. In light of Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court , does Hawaii's general long-arm statute, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634-35, permit a Hawaii court to assert personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

The Hawaii Supreme Court may rephrase the questions as it deems necessary.

II

Counsel for Defendant-Appellees LG Chem, Ltd. and LG Chem America, Inc. are:

Stefan ReinkeLyons Brandt Cook & HiramatsuSuite 1800841 Bishop St.Honolulu, HI 96813(808) 524-7030 Wendy Sabina DowseLewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP74-830 Highway 111Suite 200Indian Wells, CA 92210(760) 501-0920

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant Matt Yamashita are:

James J. BickertonBickerton Law Group, LLLP745 Fort Street MallSuite 801Honolulu, HI 96813-3815(808) 599-3811 Jeremy Kyle O'SteenBickerton Law Group, LLLP745 Fort Street MallSuite 801Honolulu, HI 96813-3815(808) 628-7517

III

A

This products liability suit arises from an injury allegedly suffered by Matt Yamashita, a Hawaii Resident. Yamashita claims that an electronic cigarette and its lithium-ion battery exploded in his mouth, causing severe and permanent injury. Yamashita alleges that the battery was designed, manufactured, and distributed by two corporations: defendants LG Chem, Ltd. ("LG Chem"), and LG Chem America, Inc. ("LG Chem America"). He claims that LG Chem and LG Chem America mislabeled their battery with incorrect specifications and distributed it to an unidentified third party, who then sold it to Yamashita.

Yamashita filed this action against LG Chem and LG Chem America in Hawaii state court, on grounds of strict products liability, negligence, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violation of Hawaii's state unfair competition statute, Haw. Rev. State. § 480-2. Among other things, Yamashita in his complaint alleged that LG Chem and LG Chem America negligently designed and manufactured the subject battery to be unsafe; he alleged that LG Chem and LG Chem America failed adequately to test the subject battery to ensure its safety; and he alleged that LG Chem and LG Chem America negligently labeled, advertised, and distributed the subject battery by failing to warn consumers it was unsafe. The subject battery was alleged to be an 18650 lithium-ion battery.

LG Chem timely removed from Hawaii state court to the District Court for the District of Hawaii, where LG Chem and LG Chem America timely moved to dismiss Yamashita's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Yamashita opposed the motions and moved for jurisdictional discovery. Based on the allegations, as well as exhibits and declarations submitted by the parties, the district court denied Yamashita's motion for jurisdictional discovery and dismissed Yamashita's claims for lack of personal jurisdiction over LG Chem or LG Chem America. Yamashita timely appealed to this court.

B

According to declarations filed by LG Chem and LG Chem America, both corporations are foreign to Hawaii. One declaration states that LG Chem is a South Korean company headquartered in Seoul, South Korea. Another declaration indicates that LG Chem America is a subsidiary of LG Chem, incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Georgia. And LG Chem America's web site lists locations in New Jersey, Illinois, Texas, and California, but not Hawaii.

Yamashita alleges that LG Chem and LG Chem America have conducted a variety of activities in Hawaii related to lithium-ion batteries. For example, Yamashita claims that LG Chem and LG Chem America targeted the Hawaii market by advertising and selling lithium-ion batteries to Hawaii residents for installation in their homes. He also alleges that LG Chem and LG Chem America sold other lithium-ion batteries in Hawaii through big-box retailers. And he claims that Hawaii-based companies sell electric bicycles containing lithium-ion batteries produced by LG Chem. Yamashita also submitted reams of informal evidence that LG Chem and LG Chem America have other miscellaneous connections to Hawaii.

But LG Chem and LG Chem America deny distributing the lithium-ion battery in question to Hawaii, and Yamashita has not produced any evidence to the contrary. The district court concluded that Yamashita's claims did not "arise out of" LG Chem's or LG Chem America's in-state activities because the in-state activities were not the "but for" cause of Yamashita's injury. On the record before us, we tentatively agree that, although the defendants' in-state activities may have some relationship to Yamashita's injuries, the relationship is likely not one of causation.

IV

To dispose of Yamashita's appeal, we must decide whether Hawaii courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over LG Chem or LG Chem America. This personal jurisdiction inquiry normally involves two questions, one of state law and one of federal law: first, whether state law permits exercise of jurisdiction; and second, whether the exercise of jurisdiction complies with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Services, Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd. , 328 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2003). Where a state's law incorporates the federal Due Clause, the answer to the federal law question may dictate the answer to the state law question. Id. (reasoning that, because "California's long-arm statute allows courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants to the extent permitted by the Due Process Clause," the Court "need only determine whether personal jurisdiction ... would meet the requirements of due process.").

But two factors prevent us from answering these questions in this appeal. First, it is unclear whether Hawaii's general long-arm statute incorporates the federal Due Process Clause. See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634-35. Second, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Due Process Clause expanded after Hawaii passed its long-arm statute. See Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 1017, 209 L.Ed.2d 225 (2021). Therefore, if Hawaii's general long-arm statute incorporates the Due Process Clause, the Supreme Court's evolving interpretations of such Clause necessarily expand the reach of Hawaii's general long-arm statute. However, if Hawaii's general long-arm statute merely borrows from federal law, but does not incorporate it, then the meaning of Hawaii's general long-arm statute is fixed as it was before Ford Motor Co. , notwithstanding the Supreme Court's increasingly permissive understanding of the Due Process Clause. Thus, to resolve this case, we invite the Supreme Court of Hawaii to interpret Hawaii's general long-arm statute, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634-35, in light of recent Supreme Court precedent.

A

"Where, as here, there is no applicable federal statute governing personal jurisdiction, the law of the state in which the district court sits applies." Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Industries AB , 11 F.3d 1482, 1484 (9th Cir. 1993). This case was brought in the District of Hawaii; thus, our exercise of personal jurisdiction is governed by Hawaii law. Hawaii uses a two-step inquiry. A court in Hawaii has personal jurisdiction only "when (1) the defendant's activity falls under the State's long-arm statute, and (2) the application of the statute complies with constitutional due process." Norris v. Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc. , 102 Hawai'i 203, 74 P.3d 26, 30 (2003), as corrected (Aug. 12, 2003) (quoting Shaw v. North Am. Title Co. , 76 Hawai'i 323, 876 P.2d 1291, 1295 (1994) ). Before analyzing whether exercise of personal jurisdiction violates the federal Due Process Clause, a court "must first determine whether Defendant's activities satisfy the requirements under" Hawaii's general long-arm statute, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634-35 ("Acts submitting to jurisdiction"). Norris , 74 P.3d at 30.

To reiterate the point: the Hawaii state-law inquiry necessarily precedes the constitutional Due Process Clause analysis. If the activity from which the litigation arose does not fall within Hawaii's general long-arm statute, the general long-arm statute does not apply; and it is therefore unnecessary to reach the question of whether "the application of the statute complies with constitutional due process." Norris , 74 P.3d at 30. In other words, when Hawaii's general long-arm statute does not permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction, Hawaii courts decide the personal jurisdiction question on state-law grounds. See Norris , 74 P.3d at 32.

We cannot determine whether Hawaii's general...