Cooper v. Shoei Safety Helmet Corp.

Cooper v. Shoei Safety Helmet Corp.

Opinion

Order Denying Shoei's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

[ECF No. 30]

This is a wrongful-death, products-liability action stemming from a motorcycle accident that killed Plaintiff Kambra Cooper's husband. Cooper alleges that the helmet her husband wore during the accident was defective and contributed to his death, so she sues Shoei Company, Ltd. (Shoei), the Japanese corporation that manufactured the helmet; and Shoei Safety Helmet Corp. (SSHC), the California corporation [*2]  that markets Shoei helmets in the United States. I previously granted SSHC's motion for lack of personal jurisdiction. Shoei has since been served¹ and now moves to dismiss Cooper's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that it does not conduct business in Nevada.² But because Shoei inserted the helmet into the stream of commerce and its website demonstrates an intent to serve Nevada, Cooper has made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. So I deny Shoei's motion.

Discussion

The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause limits a court's power to bind a nonresident defendant to a judgment in the state in which it sits.³ "Although a nonresident's physical presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the court is not required," for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction, "the nonresident generally must have 'certain minimum contacts such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'"⁴ "There are two forms of personal jurisdiction that a forum state may exercise over a nonresident defendant—general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction."⁵ Because Cooper concedes that Shoei is not subject to general jurisdiction in Nevada,⁶ I apply only a specific-jurisdiction [*3]  analysis.

Specific jurisdiction depends on an "activity or an occurrence that takes place in [or is purposely directed at] the forum State and is therefore subject to the State's regulation."⁷ "In contrast to general, all-purpose jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of 'issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction.'"⁸ Courts in the Ninth Circuit apply a three-prong test to determine whether specific jurisdiction over a defendant exists: (1) the defendant "must have performed some act or consummated some transaction with the forum by which it purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business" in the forum state; (2) the plaintiff's claims "must arise out of or result from [those] forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable."⁹

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.