On Tuesday, the Western District of Oklahoma granted defendant Samsung SDI Co. Ltd’s (Samsung) motion to dismiss a personal injury suit filed after a Samsung-made lithium-ion battery used in an e-cigarette allegedly exploded in the plaintiff’s pocket and caused injuries.
The court’s personal jurisdiction ruling rested on its conclusion that the complaint failed to show that Samsung purposefully directed its activities at residents of the Oklahoma forum.
Chief Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti recounted that the subject of the lawsuit was the explosion of an e-cigarette’s 18650 lithium-ion battery that caused one of two plaintiffs to suffer burns to his right hand and leg, an occurrence that has been the subject of other lawsuits, like one filed in Arizona last July. The plaintiffs sued both Amazon, the e-cigarette’s seller, and Samsung, the device battery’s manufacturer.
The court’s 18-page opinion explained Samsung is a South Korean corporation with its principal place of business and headquarters in South Korea. As such, Samsung contested the plaintiffs’ ability to hail it to court in Oklahoma.
The plaintiffs advanced several theories in support of their argument that the court has specific jurisdiction over Samsung, all falling under the “stream of commerce” framework.
In particular, the plaintiffs averred that because Samsung sells batteries to companies which incorporate them into consumer products available nationwide and because it has marketing arms located in four cities around the country, though none of which are in Oklahoma, it has sufficient contacts with the state. This was so, the plaintiffs said, regardless of its lack of direct sales or marketing of batteries in the state.
On these facts Judge DeGiusti found no purposeful availment. In so ruling, the court rejected the notion that jurisdiction may be established based solely on the existence of a nationwide distribution system.
Judge DeGiusti also declined the plaintiffs’ theory that Samsung purposefully availed itself of the Oklahoma market vis-à-vis its relationships with retailers Dell and Harley-Davidson, which each have a physical presence in the state. Calling the argument “tenuous” and “unconvincing,” the court opined that “‘specific jurisdiction must be based on actions by the defendant and not on events that are the result of unilateral actions taken by someone else.’”
The Oklahoma judge also said the plaintiffs were not entitled to jurisdictional discovery, ruling that “there does not appear to be any additional conduct directed at the state sufficient to exercise personal jurisdiction over Samsung.”
The plaintiffs are represented by McIntyre Law P.C. and Motley Rice LLC. Samsung is represented by Gable Gotwals and Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.
