Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

LG Chem, Ltd. v. Superior Court

LG Chem, Ltd. v. Superior Court

Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One

June 27, 2022, Opinion Filed

D079718

Opinion

DO, J.—

INTRODUCTION

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 pants pocket. In addition to the vape shop and vape distributor, he sued LG Chem Ltd. (LG Chem), the South Korean manufacturer of 18650 lithium-ion batteries (18650 batteries), for negligence and product liability. The trial court denied LG Chem's motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding the court's exercise of specific jurisdiction over LG Chem comported with federal due process. LG Chem petitioned this court for writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion to quash. We issued an order directing [**2]  real party in interest Lawhon to show cause why the relief sought should not be granted. We now grant the petition and direct the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion to quash and enter a new order granting the motion.

The jurisdictional facts are 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. It had no connection to the vape shop or the vape distributor responsible for selling the defective battery that injured Lawhon. Its activities in California consisted of sales of 18650 batteries to three California companies in the electric vehicle industry for use in electric vehicles. The question presented is whether Lawhon's personal injury claims arise out of or relate to those sales. We conclude they do not. Thus, the exercise of jurisdiction over LG Chem in this California lawsuit is not consistent with due process.

 [*355] 

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

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

80 Cal. App. 5th 348 *; 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 555 **; 295 Cal. Rptr. 3d 661; 2022 WL 2301004

LG CHEM, LTD., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; RYAN LAWHON, Real Party in Interest.

Subsequent History: Time for Granting or Denying Review Extended LG Chem, Ltd. v. Superior Court, 2022 Cal. LEXIS 5317 (Cal., Aug. 26, 2022)

Review denied by, Request denied by Lg Chem v. Superior Court, 2022 Cal. LEXIS 6171 (Cal., Oct. 12, 2022)

Prior History:  [**1] ORIGINAL PROCEEDING in mandate, No. 37-2019-00047411-CU-PO-CTL, Timothy Taylor, Judge.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Richardson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71456, 2015 WL 3506698 (W.D. Okla., June 3, 2015)

Disposition: Petition granted.

CORE TERMS

batteries, contacts, sales, consumer, manufacturers, vape, customers, purposefully, electric, shop, personal jurisdiction, standalone, availed, jurisdictional fact, forum state, trial court, allegations, distributor, lithium-ion, replaceable, cases, cells, plaintiff's claim, distribute, advertise, shipped, nonresident, benefits, selling, courts

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Questions of Fact & Law, Preliminary Considerations, Jurisdiction, In Rem & Personal Jurisdiction, In Personam Actions, Due Process, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Procedural Due Process, Scope of Protection, Minimum Contacts, Purposeful Availment, Challenges, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Preponderance of Evidence, Judicial Notice, Adjudicative Facts, Doing Business, Placement of Product in Commerce, Foreseeability, Substantial Contacts, Governments, Courts, Judicial Precedent, Pleading & Practice, Pleadings, Rule Application & Interpretation