LG Chem, Ltd. v. Lemmerman

• Decision Date: 16 September 2021
• Docket Number: A21A1029
• Citation: 863 S.E.2d 514,361 Ga.App. 163
• Parties: LG CHEM, LTD. v. LEMMERMAN.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

361 Ga.App. 163

863 S.E.2d 514

LG CHEM, LTD.

v.LEMMERMAN.

A21A1029

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

September 16, 2021

P. Michael Freed, Charles Kyle Reed, Atlanta, for Appellant.

Dylan James Hooper, Atlanta, Harris I. Yegelwel, Thomas Seider, Celene Humphries, for Appellee.

Barnes, Presiding Judge.

After Cameron Lemmerman was injured by an exploding lithium-ion battery, he sued several defendants, including LG Chem, Ltd. ("LG Chem"), the foreign corporation that allegedly manufactured the battery. LG Chem moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the trial court denied the motion. Following the grant of its application for interlocutory review, LG Chem appeals from the trial court's order denying its motion to dismiss, contending that the trial court erred in holding that the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over LG Chem comported with due process. For the reasons discussed more fully below, we affirm.

"A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction must be granted if there are insufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that defendant can be subjected to the jurisdiction of the court." Beasley v. Beasley , 260 Ga. 419, 420, 396 S.E.2d 222 (1990).

A defendant moving to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the absence of jurisdiction. To meet that burden, the defendant may raise matters not contained in the pleadings. However, when the outcome of the motion depends on unstipulated facts, it must be accompanied by supporting affidavits or citations to evidentiary material in the record. Further, to the extent that defendant's evidence controverts the allegations of the complaint, plaintiff may not rely on mere allegations, but must also submit supporting affidavits or documentary evidence. When examining and deciding jurisdictional issues on a motion to dismiss, a trial court has discretion to hear oral testimony or to decide the motion on the basis of affidavits and documentary evidence alone pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-43 (b). If the trial court conducts an evidentiary hearing, it may resolve disputed factual issues, and we will show deference to those findings. On the other hand, where, as here, a motion is resolved based solely upon written submissions, the reviewing court is in an equal position with the trial court to determine the facts and therefore examines the facts under a non-deferential standard, and we resolve all disputed issues of fact in favor of the party asserting the existence of personal jurisdiction.

(Citation, punctuation, and footnote omitted.) Intercontinental Svcs. of Del. v. Kent , 343 Ga. App. 567, 568, 807 S.E.2d 485 (2017). See Beasley , 260 Ga. at 420, 396 S.E.2d 222. Furthermore, when the motion is decided on written submissions, if the defendant does not present evidence controverting particular allegations of the complaint, those allegations can be relied on by the plaintiff and must be accepted as true by this Court. Amerireach.com v. Walker , 290 Ga. 261, 270 (2), 719 S.E.2d 489 (2011) ; Beasley , 260 Ga. at 420, 396 S.E.2d 222. Guided by these principles, we turn to the record in the present case.

The complaint alleged as follows. Lemmerman, a Georgia resident, was injured by a defective 18650 lithium-ion battery manufactured by LG Chem, a South Korean corporation. Lemmerman's girlfriend purchased the battery at Vape City LLC, a Georgia retailer that sold e-cigarettes, personal vaporizers, e-liquids, batteries, and other vaping accessories. The battery was sold to her for use as a rechargeable power source for an electronic cigarette vaporizer without any instructions, warnings, or information.

Lemmerman's girlfriend regularly used the battery to power her electronic cigarette vaporizer. She ultimately gave the battery to Lemmerman. Thereafter, while at his girlfriend's Georgia residence, Lemmerman placed the battery in his pocket. As he did so, the battery exploded. Because of the explosion, Lemmerman suffered permanent injuries and disfigurement to his legs, scrotum, and right hand.

Lemmerman commenced the present suit in the State Court of Cobb County, alleging products liability claims against LG Chem based on theories of strict liability and negligence.¹ Among other things, the complaint alleged that LG Chem engaged in activity that subjected it to personal jurisdiction in the state court under subsections (1) and (3) of Georgia's Long Arm Statute, OCGA § 9-10-91 (the "Long Arm Statute").² The complaint included several factual allegations pertaining to personal jurisdiction, including that LG Chem was engaged in regular, continuous, and systematic business in Georgia; transacted substantial business in Georgia; solicited business in Georgia; targeted marketing specific to Georgia; had a regular plan for the distribution of its products in Georgia; and derived millions of dollars a year from sales of its products in Georgia. The complaint further alleged that LG Chem's 18650 lithium-ion batteries were used in various applications, and that LG Chem advertised, marketed, sold, distributed, and placed its 18650 lithium-ion batteries (including the battery at issue in this case) into the stream of commerce in Georgia through the use of wholesalers, distributors, and retailers "with reasonable expectation that [its products] would be used in this state and which [were] in fact used in this [S]tate."

LG Chem filed a motion to dismiss by way of special appearance in which it sought dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction under OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (2). According to LG Chem, specific jurisdiction could not be exercised over it consistent with due process.³ In support of its position, LG Chem submitted the affidavit of Sooha Yang, the leader of its Global Litigation Team. She averred that LG Chem was a foreign corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business in Seoul, South Korea. According to Yang, LG Chem was not registered to do business in Georgia, did not have a registered agent for service of process in Georgia, did not own or lease any real property in Georgia, and did not have any offices or employees in Georgia. Yang further averred that LG Chem manufactured 18650 lithium-ion batteries only "for use in specific applications by sophisticated companies"; did not design or manufacture 18650 lithium-ion batteries for sale to consumers as "standalone batteries"; did not conduct any business with Vape City, direct or control its actions, or authorize it to sell or distribute lithium-ion batteries for any purpose, including "for use by individual consumers as standalone, removable, rechargeable batteries in electronic cigarette or vaping devices"; and "never authorized any distributor, wholesaler, retailer, or re-seller to advertise, sell or distribute any lithium-ion [batteries] for use by individual consumers as standalone, removable, rechargeable batteries in electronic cigarette or vaping devices."

Lemmerman opposed the motion to dismiss, contending that specific jurisdiction could be exercised over LG Chem consistent with due process. Lemmerman relied on the allegations in his complaint regarding LG Chem's placement of millions of its 18650 lithium-ion batteries into the stream of commerce and its substantial business in Georgia. Additionally, among other exhibits, Lemmerman submitted evidence of LG Chem's website reflecting that its lithium-ion batteries were used for a variety of consumer devices such as smartphones and laptops.⁴

Based on the parties’ written submissions,⁵ the trial court denied LG Chem's motion to dismiss, concluding that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over LG Chem was proper under both the Long Arm Statute and principles of due process. Citing Showa Denko K. K. v. Pangle , 202 Ga. App. 245, 414 S.E.2d 658 (1991), the trial court determined that it had specific jurisdiction over LG Chem in light of LG Chem's "substantial contacts with the State of Georgia in connection with the distribution and marketing of [its] product." The trial court subsequently granted LG Chem a certificate of immediate review, and LG Chem then filed an application for interlocutory review, which this Court granted. The present appeal followed.

Personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is proper in Georgia if the defendant commits an act or engages in some activity enumerated in the Long Arm Statute and if the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant satisfies the requirements of due process. Lima Delta Co. v. Global Aerospace , 325 Ga. App. 76, 79, 752 S.E.2d 135 (2013). LG Chem limits its challenge on appeal to whether personal jurisdiction was proper under principles of due process.

Due process requires that individuals have fair warning that a particular activity may subject them to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign. In evaluating whether a defendant could reasonably expect to be haled into court in a particular forum, courts examine defendant's contacts with the state, focusing on whether (1) defendant has done some act to avail himself of the law of the forum state; (2) the claim is related to those acts; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable, that is, it does not violate notions of fair play and substantial justice.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Beasley , 260 Ga. at 421, 396 S.E.2d 222. Courts address the first two factors "to determine whether [the] defendant has established the minimum contacts necessary for the exercise of jurisdiction." Id. If such minimum contacts are established, courts then address the third factor to determine if the assertion of jurisdiction is reasonable. Id. Consideration of these three factors helps to "ensure that a defendant is not forced to litigate in a jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous or attenuated contacts." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. With this legal framework in mind, we address the three due process factors each in turn.

1. The first due process...