Umeda v. Tesla Inc.

Background

On April 29, 2018, near Tokyo, Japan, a Tesla Model X struck and killed Yoshihiro Umeda while he was standing beside motorcycles on the side of an expressway. The Tesla’s Autopilot system was engaged. The driver, Mr. Umeda, and the plaintiffs—Mr. Umeda’s spouse and child—were Japanese citizens, and the vehicle had been sold in Japan. Tesla Inc. was identified as a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California.

The plaintiffs sued Tesla under theories including strict products liability for design defects, strict products liability for failure to warn, negligence, wrongful death, loss of consortium, and survival. They sought damages, including punitive damages, and injunctive relief. Tesla moved to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows a court to dismiss a case when another forum would be more convenient. Tesla argued that Japan was an adequate and more appropriate forum. The plaintiffs opposed the motion and asked the court to take judicial notice of 12 documents.

Judicial Notice and Evidentiary Objections

The court denied judicial notice of Exhibits 1 through 7 and Exhibits 9 and 10, primarily because the materials were not relevant for the purposes offered or could not be considered for the truth of disputed assertions. The court granted judicial notice of Exhibits 8 and 11 for the limited purpose of showing that automated-driving technology and Tesla’s Autopilot had been the subjects of congressional hearings and governmental investigations. It granted judicial notice of Exhibit 12 only to show that the article had been published, not to establish the truth of matters stated in it. Thus, the plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice was granted in part and denied in part.

The court overruled some objections to a supplemental declaration from Atsushi Yamashita, sustained the objection to paragraph 4, and found paragraph 7 not relevant and therefore not considered. The court treated facts responding to arguments in the plaintiffs’ opposition as proper reply material but sustained objections to new facts offered to support Tesla’s initial burden.

Forum Non Conveniens Analysis

A defendant seeking dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds must show both that an adequate alternative forum exists and that private- and public-interest factors favor dismissal. The court noted that the plaintiffs’ choice of a United States forum received less deference because they were foreign citizens, although it still received some deference because Tesla was headquartered in the district and relevant Autopilot-design evidence was located there.

The plaintiffs conceded that Japan was an adequate alternative forum. Tesla represented that it was subject to Japanese jurisdiction and agreed to accept service there. Tesla also submitted a declaration stating that Japanese law provided monetary remedies for products-liability and negligence claims. The court held that Tesla had established Japan as an adequate alternative forum.

The court considered evidence located in both jurisdictions. Evidence in Japan included the driver, the vehicle, a passenger witness, other third-party witnesses, first responders, and evidence concerning the plaintiffs’ damages. Evidence in California included current and former Tesla employees and information about the design of Autopilot. The court concluded that Tesla could make its own evidence available in a Japanese action under conditions imposed by the court, while Tesla would face substantial difficulty obtaining evidence from Japanese nonparties if the case remained in California.

The court also found that both California and Japan had legitimate interests. California had an interest because Tesla was headquartered there and manufactured and sold cars there. Japan had an interest because the case involved a fatal accident involving a Japanese victim, driver, and vehicle. This factor did not strongly favor either forum. Ultimately, however, the court found that the difficulty of obtaining evidence important to Tesla’s defenses outweighed the plaintiffs’ legitimate reasons for filing in California.

Disposition and Conditions

Judge Susan Van Keulen granted Tesla’s motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens. The dismissal was subject to these conditions:

The opinion’s earlier discussion described Tesla’s proposed limitations waiver as lasting four years, but the final dismissal condition states five years. The court did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ products-liability, negligence, or other claims.