Mazda Motor Corp. v. Triche

• Docket Number: 3D21-803
• Decision Date: 15 March 2023
• Parties: Mazda Motor Corporation, etc., Appellant, v. Lourdes Triche, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Alexandre Arrata Acevedo, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

1

Mazda Motor Corporation, etc., Appellant, v. Lourdes Triche, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Alexandre Arrata Acevedo, et al., Appellees.

No. 3D21-803

Florida Court of Appeals, Third District

March 15, 2023

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lower Tribunal No. 17-15147 Beatrice Butchko, Judge.

Bowman and Brooke, LLP, and Stephanie M. Simm, John C. Seipp, Jr. and Daniel A. Rock, for appellant.

Clark Fountain, La Vista, Prather, & Littky-Rubin, LLP, and Julie H. Littky-Rubin (West Palm Beach); Halpern Santos &Pinkert, P.A., and Ian D. Pinkert, Jay Halpern, and Jacqueline Halpern, for appellees.

Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and LOBREE, JJ.

LOGUE J.

Mazda Motor Corporation ("Mazda Japan"), a company incorporated and headquartered in Japan, is a defendant in a products liability case over the design of a Mazda vehicle. The vehicle was sold in Florida to a Florida resident and when rear-ended, burst into flames on the streets of Florida killing its owner. Mazda Japan appeals from a non-final order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It challenges only whether Mazda Japan has sufficient minimum contacts with Florida for the State of Florida to assert personal jurisdiction consistent with federal due process.

Although Mazda Japan contends that the targeting of Mazda products to Florida was done solely by an American corporate subsidiary the record before us shows Mazda Japan itself did more than simply place its vehicles in the global stream of commerce heedless of the American and Florida markets. Instead, it engaged in the sort of "additional conduct" "indicat[ing] an intent or purpose to serve the market in the forum State" that the U.S. Supreme Court has held warrants specific jurisdiction. Among other actions detailed below, Mazda Japan admitted that its vehicles are "intended for the United States market, including Florida" (emphasis added), that it designed the vehicles for that market, registered trademarks to advertise the vehicles in that market, and, from Japan, ordered recalls expressly naming Florida.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently identified "this exact fact pattern (a resident-plaintiff sues a global car company, extensively serving the state market in a vehicle, for an in-state accident) as an illustration-even a paradigm example-of how specific jurisdiction works." Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1028 (2021) (emphasis added). Following this precedent, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The plaintiff, Lourdes Triche, as personal representative of the estate of Alexandre Arrata Acevedo, filed a products liability action in the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court on behalf of her son who died when his 2016 Mazda3 Sport caught fire after a rear-end collision in Florida.

The subject vehicle was designed and developed by Mazda Japan in its company headquarters in Japan. The vehicle was manufactured and assembled in Mexico by Mazda Motor Manufacturing de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., ("Mazda Mexico"), a subsidiary of Mazda Japan. Mazda Japan purchased the vehicle from Mazda Mexico and then re-sold it to Mazda Motor of America, Inc., ("Mazda North America") a subsidiary of Mazda Japan. After taking title, Mazda Japan shipped the vehicle from Mexico to the United States f/o/b Mexico with Mazda North America as the buyer.

Thereafter, Mazda North America sold the vehicle to South M.M., LLC d/b/a South Motors Mazda ("Mazda South Florida"). The decedent purchased the vehicle from Mazda South Florida.

In March 2019, the Plaintiff sued multiple Mazda entities, including Mazda Japan, Mazda North America, and Mazda South Florida, alleging claims for strict liability and negligence pertaining to a design or manufacturing defect of the subject vehicle. Mazda North America has submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court and remains a defendant below. In the course of the litigation, however, Mazda North America insists it can provide no discovery regarding the design of the vehicle because all such information is possessed only by Mazda Japan, which refuses to provide American-style discovery concerning the design.

Mazda Japan moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction asserting that it was not subject to general or specific jurisdiction because it lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Florida such that the State of Florida's assertion of personal jurisdiction violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In support of dismissal, Mazda Japan submitted two declarations from Osamu Yamashina, an official of Mazda Japan. In his declarations, Mr. Yamashina averred:

• Mazda Japan is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Hiroshima, Japan;

• Mazda Japan has never been incorporated in the State of Florida and its principal place of business has never been located in the State of Florida;

• Mazda Japan does not manufacture, design, or service vehicles in the State of Florida;

• Mazda Japan does not distribute at the wholesale level vehicles to or within the State of Florida;

• Mazda Japan does not sell at the retail level vehicles in the State of Florida;

• Mazda Japan does not advertise or market its products in Florida or to Florida residents;

• Such activities are conducted exclusively by independent dealers all of whom are independent corporate entities from Mazda Japan;

• Mazda Japan does not advise Mazda North America into which states vehicles purchased from Mazda Japan should be distributed;

• Mazda Japan and Mazda North America are separate legal entities whose corporate structures have been incorporated and maintained separately;

• Mazda Japan and Mazda North America engage in separate and distinct activities relative to the Mazda brand; and

• The Mazda dealer network in the United States consists of independent corporate entities and are overseen by Mazda North America.

In response to the motion, Plaintiff filed various materials obtained in discovery. These materials reflect Mazda Japan is the leader of a world-wide conglomerate of corporations that design, manufacture, and market a renowned brand of vehicles internationally. In its "Company Profile 2018, Mazda in Brief," an annual statement of the consolidated financials of over 68 Mazda corporations world-wide, Mazda Japan described its "main business" as the "manufacture and sales of passenger cars and commercial vehicles."

In response to requests for admissions, Mazda Japan freely admitted that its vehicles are "intended for the United States Market, including Florida." (emphasis added). In the Company Profile, Mazda Japan reported the growth of sales of Mazda vehicles in the U.S.: 2012 - 273, 307; 2013 - 283, 721; 2014 - 305, 788; 2015 - 305, 783; 2016 - 302, 195; and 2017 - 304, 394. The Profile has a section entitled "Reforming Our Sales Network (For the U.S. Market)." "We have," the Profile stated, "been focusing on reforming our sales network in the United States and other areas while enhancing customer care and developing new-generation dealerships." "We are planning to develop a new marketing strategy that is adapted to the characteristics of the U.S. market, which is crucial for Mazda, in order to build a sales system with a goal set at 400,000 units for 2021."

The Company Profile reported that Mazda Japan's Executive Vice President, Mr. Kiyoshi Fujiwara, is responsible for "oversight of operations in North America." In the Profile, Mazda Japan stated it had a U.S. product lineup consisting of 6 makes of vehicles. It numbered its U.S. dealerships at 582. Elsewhere, it named Mazda North America as "the authorized distributor of Mazda brand vehicles in the United States." Among other things, Mazda Japan reported it had research and development facilities in California and Michigan, operated by Mazda North America.

Declarations and responses to request for admissions provided further information. Mazda Japan designed vehicles to comply with U.S. regulations. Mazda Japan has registered trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the following: "Mazda," "MazdaUSA," "Zoom-Zoom," "Mazda Dealer Online," "Reward Performance by Mazda," "RPM Reward Performance by Mazda," "Mazda Zero to Drive Event," and "Mazda Capital Services." Mazda Japan provided the warranties, at least in part, for Mazda vehicles sold in the U.S.

Mazda Japan has shipped at least 493 vehicles to Florida ports during the period 2006 to 2020. These vehicles were sold to Mazda North America, f/o/b Mexico or f/o/b Japan. In December 2015, Mazda Japan showcased how its designs combine Japan's famous aesthetics with advanced ergonomics at an event in Miami, Florida. Illustrating Mazda Japan's ongoing involvement with vehicles sold in the U.S. and Florida, on many occasions, Mazda Japan ordered recalls of Mazda vehicles including recalls of the make and model of the car at issue and recalls specifically naming Florida.

ANALYSIS

1. Determining factual basis for deciding motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction

We have explained the procedure for establishing the facts regarding claims of personal jurisdiction as follows:

If the allegations in the complaint sufficiently establish long-arm jurisdiction, then the burden shifts to the defendant to contest the jurisdictional allegations in the complaint, or to claim that the federal minimum contacts requirement is not met, by way of affidavit or other similar sworn proof. If properly contested, the burden then returns to the plaintiff to refute the evidence submitted by the defendant, also by affidavit or similar sworn proof.

The trial court can resolve the

...