Lewis v. Samsung SDI America, Inc.

Background

Sasha Lewis alleged that a battery-powered scooter caught fire while she was charging it on or about September 9, 2020, causing serious and permanent bodily injuries. She asserted New York common-law claims against several Samsung-related entities and unidentified corporations, including strict product liability, breach of express and implied warranties, failure to warn, and negligence.

The motion addressed in this opinion was filed by Samsung SDI Co. Ltd. ("SDI"), which the opinion describes as a corporation incorporated in South Korea with its headquarters and principal place of business there. SDI stated that it was not registered to do business in New York, had no New York office, bank account, employees, officers, agents, directors, or representatives, and had never conducted business in New York or with a New York-based entity. SDI also stated that it had never sold or supplied batteries to Wuxing electric scooters and had no control over its batteries after sale.

Lewis alleged that the defendants caused the battery to be manufactured, sold, used in New York, placed in her scooter, marketed, and distributed. She did not allege where or when she bought the scooter, how the battery reached New York, or that SDI specifically marketed or distributed the battery to New York residents.

Personal Jurisdiction

SDI moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which allows dismissal when the court lacks authority over the defendant. The court explained that Lewis had to establish jurisdiction over SDI for each claim. It considered the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint and SDI’s declaration, while viewing disputed facts in the light most favorable to Lewis.

The court examined both general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction under New York law. General jurisdiction would allow New York courts to hear any claims against SDI. The court found no general jurisdiction because SDI was incorporated and headquartered in South Korea, and Lewis’s allegations about SDI’s global market share and the number of e-bikes in New York City did not show that SDI was essentially based in New York. SDI’s unrebutted statements that it had no New York office, employees, or registration to do business also weighed against general jurisdiction.

Specific jurisdiction would allow the court to hear claims connected to SDI’s contacts with New York. Under New York’s long-arm statute, Lewis relied on provisions concerning conducting business in New York and committing an out-of-state tort that causes an injury in New York.

For the business-transaction provision, the court held that Lewis had not shown that SDI purposefully conducted business in New York. General allegations that SDI was a major worldwide battery manufacturer and that its batteries were widely used in New York did not establish that SDI directly or indirectly shipped or sold batteries there. The court also found that Lewis had not shown the required connection between any New York business transaction and her claims.

For the out-of-state-tort provision, the court held that Lewis had not shown that SDI expected or should reasonably have expected its conduct to have consequences in New York. The court found no evidence of an agreement, distribution arrangement, or other deliberate effort by SDI to serve the New York or United States market for the batteries at issue. The court therefore concluded that New York’s long-arm statute did not provide a basis for jurisdiction and did not reach whether exercising jurisdiction would comply with constitutional due-process requirements.

Jurisdictional Discovery

Lewis asked for additional discovery about SDI’s contacts with New York if the court found jurisdiction lacking. The court denied that request. It held that Lewis had not made the required initial showing that jurisdiction existed, relying only on SDI’s global market share and the prevalence of e-bikes in New York City. The court also noted that SDI’s declaration had already addressed several proposed discovery subjects and that the unrebutted statements made it unlikely that additional discovery would establish jurisdiction.

Disposition and Remaining Matters

The court granted SDI’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint as to SDI under Rule 12(b)(2) and dismissed all claims against SDI. The court denied Lewis’s request for jurisdictional discovery.

The opinion also noted that the court had previously entered a default judgment against Samsung, Inc. The court referred that matter to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein for an inquest into liability and damages, as appropriate, and ordered SDI’s counsel to provide information concerning SDI’s relationship with Samsung, Inc., service, possible notice, and contact information.

Finally, the court ordered Lewis to show cause in writing why the claims against ABC Corporations 1-10 should not be dismissed for failure to serve them. The opinion states that those entities had not been identified or served and that Lewis had not shown good cause or requested additional time for service.