Products Liability Law Reporter

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that jurisdictional discovery was warranted in a products liability suit against a Korean battery manufacturer.

Here, the Samsung SDI 18650 lithium-ion battery that plaintiff B.D. used in an e-cigarette device exploded in his pocket, resulting in severe burns. He sued Samsung SDI in Indiana—the place where the battery was purchased—alleging claims for products liability. Samsung SDI removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and then moved to dismiss for lack of general and specific jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion. The court found that Samsung SDI had sufficient contacts with Indiana to permit the exercise of specific jurisdiction and that a sufficient nexus existed between Samsung SDI’s marketing of the 18650 lithium-ion battery in Indiana and B.D.’s alleged injuries. The defendant appealed.

Remanding, the Seventh Circuit noted that the determinative issue was whether the district court had specific personal jurisdiction over Samsung SDI. Citing case law, the court said that specific jurisdiction depends on whether there is an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, such as an activity or occurrence that takes place in the forum state. Here, the court found, jurisdictional discovery is warranted to resolve various issues, including whether Samsung SDI knew its batteries were reaching consumers in Indiana and whether the company made any effort to control the distribution of its 18650 lithium-ion batteries. Additionally, jurisdictional discovery could yield facts as to whether Samsung SDI’s contacts with Indiana were related to the plaintiff’s alleged injuries and whether the exercise of specific jurisdiction would be fair to Samsung SDI.

Finding that the plaintiff had offered a colorable showing of Samsung SDI’s minimum contacts, the court held that a limited remand for jurisdictional discovery was warranted.

Citation: B.D. v. Samsung SDI Co., 2024 WL 256446 (7th Cir. Jan. 24, 2024).

Plaintiff counsel: William H. Cross, San Francisco; AAJ member Robert T. Dassow, Indianapolis; and Jonathan Taylor and AAJ member Alisa Tiwari, both of Washington, D.C.