Eisenhauer v. LG Chem, Ltd.
| Decision Date | 21 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4:21-CV-964 RLW |
| Parties | JASON EISENHAUER, Plaintiff, v. LG CHEM, LTD. and LG CHEM AMERICA, INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on Defendant LG Chem, Ltd.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (ECF No 28) and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike or Disregard the Supplemental Declaration of Hwi Jae Lee (ECF No. 37). These matters are fully briefed and ready for disposition. For the reasons stated herein, the Court denies Defendant LG Chem Ltd.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and (ECF No. 28) and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike or Disregard the Supplemental Declaration of Hwi Jae Lee (ECF No. 37).
To survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction by pleading facts sufficient to support a “reasonable inference that the defendant[ ] can be subjected to jurisdiction within the state.” K-V Pharm. Co.v. J. Uriach & CIA, S.A, 648 F.3d 588 59-92 (8th Cir. 2011); see also, Viasystems Inc. v. EBM-Papst St. Georgen GmbH & Co., KG, 646 F.3d 589, 592 (8th Cir. 2011); Miller v. Nippon CarbonCo., Ltd., 528 F.3d 1087, 1090 (8th Cir. 2008); Dever v. Hentzen Coatings, 380 F.3d 1070, 1072 (8th Cir. 2004); Epps v. Siewart Info. Servs. Corp., 327 F.3d 642, 647 (8th Cir. 2003). A plaintiff's prima facie showing “must be tested, not by the pleadings alone, but by affidavits and exhibits supporting or opposing the motion.” K-V Pharm., 648 F.3d at 592 (quoting Dever, 380 F.3d at 1072-73). The Court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolves factual conflicts in the plaintiff's favor; however, plaintiff carries the burden of proof and that burden does not shift to defendants. Epps, 327 F.3d at 647; Wallach v. Whetstone Partners, LLC, No. 4:16 CV 450 CDP, 2016 WL 3997080, at *1 (E.D. Mo. July 26, 2016); Fastpath, Inc. v. Arbela Techs. Corp., 760 F.3d 816, 820 (8th Cir. 2014). “When personal jurisdiction is contested, ‘it is the plaintiff who must shoulder the burden of establishing that defendant's contacts with the forum state were sufficient.'” Bryant v. Smith Interior Design Grp., Inc., 310 S.W.3d 227, 231 (Mo. 2010) (quoting Angoff v. Marion A. Allen, Inc., 39 S.W.3d 483, 486 (Mo. banc 2001)).
Plaintiff Jason Eisenhauer, a Missouri resident, purchased a 18650 lithium-ion battery manufactured by LG from a retailer in Missouri. (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 6, ¶¶ 1-2). Eisenhauer was injured when that battery exploded in his pocket. (Id.) Defendant LG Chem, Ltd. (“LG Chem”) is a global chemical-based company, founded in Korea in 1947, which produced the cylindrical 18650 lithium-ion battery at issue in this case. (FAC, ¶¶ 3, 6, 9). LG Chem ships lithium-ion batteries and other products directly into the United States from Korea and its distributors fulfill delivery and distribution of the products within the United States. (FAC ¶ 8). LG Chem also sells lithium-ion batteries, including 18650 batteries, to Chinese companies that it knows to be distributors of e-cigarette and personal vaping products. (FAC, ¶¶ 9-10). LG Chem was aware that these companies then distributed these batteries to e-cigarette and vaping retailers, wholesalers, and distributors in the United States, including into Missouri. (FAC, ¶ 10). LG Chem does not maintain any physical presence in the United States, but instead operates through its network of wholly owned subsidiaries to sell its various LG Chem products nationwide. (FAC, ¶ 7).
On January 11, 2022, Defendant LG Chem filed a Motion to Dismiss based upon lack of personal jurisdiction. (ECF No. 28).[1] LG Chem included a declaration by Hwi Jae Lee (ECF No. 28-2). Eisenhauser filed an Opposition on February 8, 2022 (ECF No. 33) and, on February 25, 2022, LG Chem filed a reply brief, supported by a supplemental declaration by Hwi Jae Lee. (ECF No. 36). On March 4, 2022, Eisenhauser filed a Motion to Strike or Disregard the Supplemental Declaration of Hwi Jae Lee (ECF No. 37). Eisenhauser argued that, for the second time in this case, one of the defendants (represented by the same counsel) waited until its reply brief to attach a “supplemental” declaration that purports to deny a particular allegation in the Complaint. (ECF No. 37 at 1). Plaintiff argued it was improper for Defendant LG Chem to withhold Lee's Declaration until the reply. (ECF No. 37 at 1 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(c)(2) (). The Court is troubled by defense counsel's repeated practice of belatedly filing affidavits regarding information alleged in the Complaint. Nevertheless, the Court considers Lee's Supplemental Declaration because it does not affect the Court's decision to deny LG Chem's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. See Williams v. LG Chem, Ltd., No. 4:21-CV-00966-SRC, 2022 WL 873366, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 24, 2022) ().
Eisenhauer alleges in his Complaint that “the Defendants” maintain “purposeful, continuous, and systematic contacts with Missouri entities and the Missouri market with respect to lithium-ion batteries, including 18650 lithium-ion batteries.” (FAC, ¶ 14). Eisenhauer alleges the “regular course and scope of Defendants' business involves shipping huge quantities of its batteries, including 18650 lithium-ion batteries, into and throughout Missouri, and each Defendant has specifically shipped tens of thousands of lithium-ion batteries into Missouri.” (FAC, ¶ 14). Eisenhauer alleges, upon information and belief, that “these batteries (including 18650 batteries) were during the relevant time period sold both as stand-alone batteries at retailers in Missouri and as component parts in products sold in Missouri.” (Id.) Eisenhauer maintains that this “suit arises out of or relates to the Defendants' contacts with Missouri because it involves an injury to a Missouri resident that occurred in Missouri and was caused by an LG-manufactured 18650 lithium-ion battery sold in Missouri.” (Id.)
In support of its Motion to Dismiss, LG Chem argues that it is a Korean corporation with its headquarters and principal offices in Seoul, South Korea and cannot be considered “at home” in Missouri. (ECF No. 28, ¶ 2). Further, LG Chem argues that it is not subject to the specific jurisdiction of the Court because Eisenhauser's claims do not arise out of or relate to its purposeful contacts with Missouri created by LG Chem. (ECF No. 28, ¶ 3 (citing Mo. Rev. Stat. § 506.500)). LG Chem contends that it “never served a consumer market for standalone, replaceable lithium ion batteries in Missouri, or anywhere else.” (ECF No. 28, ¶ 4). Further, LG Chem maintains it “never distributed, advertised, marketed, or sold its 18650 lithium ion battery cells directly to consumers in Missouri (or anywhere) as standalone replaceable batteries, and never distributed, marketed, advertised, or sold any 18650 lithium ion battery cells to anyone else for resale to consumers in Missouri (or anywhere) as standalone, replaceable batteries.” (ECF No. 28, ¶ 4).
As stated, LG Chem filed sworn declarations by Hwi Jae Lee, a sales professional for LG Chem from 2015 to 2020. See ECF Nos. 28-2, ¶ 5. Lee declared that LG Chem does not have an office in Missouri, is not registered to do business in Missouri, does not have a registered agent for service of process in Missouri, and does not own or lease any real property in Missouri. (ECF No. 28-2, ¶ 9). Lee contends that LG Chem “never designed, manufactured, distributed, advertised, or sold 18650 lithium ion cells for sale or to use by individual consumers as standalone, replaceable batteries.” (ECF No. 28-2, ¶ 14). Likewise, Lee asserts that LG Chem “never distributed, marketed, advertised, or sold 18650 lithium ion cells directly to consumers as standalone, replaceable batteries, and never authorized any manufacturer, wholesaler, distributed, retailer, reseller, or other individual or entity to do so.” (ECF No. 28-2, ¶ 15). Lee further swore that LG Chem . (ECF No. 28-2, ¶ 18).
In his supplemental declaration, attached to LG Chem's Reply, Lee attests that he is “not aware of any basis for the assertion that LG Chem sold or shipped tens of thousands of 18650 lithium ion cells to buyers in Missouri.” (ECF No. 36-1, ¶ 9). Further, Lee states “LG Chem did not sell or ship any 18650 lithium ion cells to anyone located in Missouri in the three years preceding the date of Plaintiff's alleged incident (August 7, 2018).” (ECF No. 36-1, ¶ 10).
In his Opposition, Eisenhauer contends that his pleadings satisfy due process because he has established sufficient minimum contacts with the forum. First, Eisenhauer alleged that LG Chem regularly ships huge quantities of its batteries including the subject 18650 lithium-ion batteries, into and throughout Missouri. (ECF No. 33 at 6). Eisenhauer also alleges that LG Chem sold large quantities of knowingly defective or nonconforming 18650 batteries to distributors outside Missouri, knowing that these...
To continue reading
Request your trial