Thiam v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 4:19-CV-00633 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
| Parties | KHOURAICHI THIAM Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., METROPCS TEXAS, LLC, LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., LG ELECTRONICS, INC. OF KOREA; INSPUR LG DIGITAL MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS CO., LTD; and LG CHEM LTD OF KOREA Defendants. |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant LG Chem, LTD's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Dkt. #43). Having considered the motion and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the motion should be denied.
Plaintiff Khouraichi Thiam ("Thiam") is an individual who was injured as a result of Defendants' product—the LG K20 Plus cell phone for T-Mobile ("LG K20"). Thiam purchased the LG K20 from MetroPCS in Dallas, Texas. (Dkt. #28 ¶ 16). On or about May 15, 2019, Thiam's LG K20 exploded in his hand leaving him "severely injured and permanently disfigured" (Dkt. #28 ¶ 17).
On July 16, 2019, Thiam filed a petition in Texas state court. Defendants then removed the case to this Court. On September 3, 2020, Defendant LG Chem, LTD of Korea ("LGC"), filed this Motion. Thiam claims Defendants regularly engaged in the business of supplying or placing products like the LG K20 into the stream of commerce (Dkt. #28 ¶ 28). Further, Thiam claims his injuries were caused by the defects in the LG K20, which was "designed, manufactured, tested, assembled, planned, engineered, constructed, built, inspected, marketed, advertised, distributed, and/or sold by Defendants" (Dkt. #28 ¶ 15).
In his Second Amended Complaint, Thiam brought claims for (1) strict liability—design defect; (2) strict liability—manufacturing defect; (3) strict liability—failure to warn; (4) negligence; (5) breach of express warranties; and (6) breach of implied warranties (Dkt. #28). On September 3, 2020, LGC filed this Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) (Dkt. #43). After Thiam responded and LGC replied, the Court ordered jurisdictional discovery (Dkt. #47). Following jurisdictional discovery, Thiam filed his Supplimental Response in Opposition (Dkt. #54), and LGC filed a Reply (Dkt. #60).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) requires a court to dismiss a claim if the court does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2). After a non-resident defendant files a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, it is the plaintiff's burden to establish that in personam jurisdiction exists. Bullion v. Gillespie, 895 F.2d 213, 217 (5th Cir. 1990) (citing WNS, Inc. v. Farrow, 884 F.2d 200, 202 (5th Cir. 1989)).
To satisfy that burden, the party seeking to invoke the court's jurisdiction must "present sufficient facts as to make out only a prima facie case supporting jurisdiction," if a court rules on a motion without an evidentiary hearing. Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000). When considering the motion to dismiss, "[a]llegations in [a] plaintiff's complaint are taken as true except to the extent that they are contradicted by defendant's affidavits." Int'l Truck & Engine Corp. v. Quintana, 259 F. Supp. 2d 553, 557 (N.D. Tex. 2003) (citing Wyatt v.Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276, 282-83 n.13 (5th Cir. 1982)); accord Black v. Acme Mkts., Inc., 564 F.2d 681, 683 n.3 (5th Cir. 1977). Further, "[a]ny genuine, material conflicts between the facts established by the parties' affidavits and other evidence are resolved in favor of plaintiff for the purposes of determining whether a prima facie case exists." Id. (citing Jones v. Petty-Ray Geophysical Geosource, Inc., 954 F.2d 161, 1067 (5th Cir. 1992)). However, if a court holds an evidentiary hearing, a plaintiff "must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the admissible evidence." In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Lit., 742 F.3d 576, 585 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Walk Haydel & Assocs., Inc. v. Coastal Power Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 235, 241-42 (5th Cir. 2008)).
A court conducts a two-step inquiry when a defendant challenges personal jurisdiction. Ham v. La Cinega Music Co., 4 F.3d 413, 415 (5th Cir. 1993). First, absent a controlling federal statute regarding service of process, the court must determine whether the forum state's long-arm statute confers personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Id. And second, the court establishes whether the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with due process under the United States Constitution.
The Texas long-arm statute confers jurisdiction to the limits of due process under the Constitution. Command-Aire Corp. v. Ont. Mech. Sales and Serv. Inc., 963 F.2d 90, 93 (5th Cir. 1992). Therefore, the sole inquiry that remains is whether personal jurisdiction offends or comports with federal constitutional guarantees. Bullion, 895 F.2d at 216. The Due Process Clause permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant when the defendant has established minimum contacts with the forum state "such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). Minimum contacts with a forum state can be satisfied bycontacts that give rise to either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction. Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644, 647 (5th Cir. 1994).
General jurisdiction exists only when the defendant's contacts with the forum state are so "'continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home in the forum State." Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 127 (2014) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)); see Cent. Freight Lines v. APA Transp. Corp., 322 F.3d 376, 381 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colum., S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n.8 (1984)). Substantial, continuous and systematic contact with a forum is a difficult standard to meet and requires extensive contacts between a defendant and the forum. Johnston v. Multidata Sys. Int'l Corp., 523 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2008). "General jurisdiction can be assessed by evaluating contacts of the defendant with the forum over a reasonable number of years, up to the date the suit was filed." Access Telecom, Inc. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 197 F.3d 694, 717 (5th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). However, "vague and overgeneralized assertions that give no indication as to the extent, duration, or frequency of contacts are insufficient to support general jurisdiction." Johnston, 523 F.3d at 609 (citing Gardemal v. Westin Hotel Co., 186 F.3d 588, 596 (5th Cir. 1999)).
Specific jurisdiction is proper when the plaintiff alleges a cause of action that grows out of or relates to a contact between the defendant and the forum state. Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414 n.8. For the court to exercise specific jurisdiction, the court must determine "(1) whether the defendant has . . . purposely directed its activities toward the forum state or purposely availed itself of the privileges of conducting activities there; (2) whether the plaintiff's cause of action arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-related contacts; and (3) whether the exercise of personaljurisdiction is fair and reasonable." Nuovo Pignone, SpA v. STORMAN ASIA M/V, 310 F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 (1985)).
Defendants who "'reach out beyond one state' and create continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of another state are subject to regulation and sanctions in the other state for consequences of their actions." Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 475 (citing Travelers Health Assoc. v. Virginia, 339 U.S. 643, 647 (1950)). Establishing a defendant's minimum contacts with the forum state requires contacts that are more than "random, fortuitous, or attenuated, or of the unilateral activity of another party or third person." Id.
"If the plaintiff successfully satisfies the first two prongs, the burden shifts to the defendant to defeat jurisdiction by showing that its exercise would be unfair or unreasonable." Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266, 271 (5th Cir. 2006). In this inquiry, the Court examines five factors: (1) the burden on the nonresident defendant; (2) the forum state's interests; (3) the plaintiff's interest in securing relief; (4) the interest of the interstate judicial system in the efficient administration of justice; and (5) the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental social policies. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477. "It is rare to say the assertion of jurisdiction is unfair after minimum contacts have been shown." McFadin v. Gerber, 587 F.3d 753, 760 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Wien Air Alaska, Inc. v. Brandt, 195 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 1999)).
LGC moves to dismiss the claims against it pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction arguing the Court lacks specific jurisdiction. Specifically, LGC argues that "as a component part manufacturer, [LGC] did not target Texas as a destination for its product."(Dkt. #43 at pp. 9-10). Thiam does not contest that this Court does not have general personal jurisdiction over LGC, so the analysis focuses on specific personal jurisdiction only.
LGC is a Korean company with its principal place of business in Seoul, South Korea (Dkt. #43 at p. 2). According to LGC, it is not licensed or registered to do business in Texas, has never had a registered agent in Texas, does not own or control personal property in Texas, does not maintain a bank account in Texas, has not purchased goods in Texas, does not maintain a mailing address or telephone number in Texas, and never paid income or property tax in Texas (Dkt. #43 at p. 2). Further, LGC claims it has no employees, officers, business agents, directors, or representatives residing in or assigned to duty in Texas (Dkt. #43 at p. 3). Importantly, LGC claims it has never manufactured,...
To continue reading
Request your trial