Lin v. Solta Medical, Inc.

Background

Hsin Lin alleged that she was injured on January 22, 2019, during a facial procedure in Taiwan using a Thermage CPT medical device. The complaint identified Solta Medical, Inc. and Bausch Health Americas, Inc. as the alleged manufacturers and asserted claims for strict liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties. The opinion noted that the complaint referred to the device as the Thermage FLX, but the parties understood that the device at issue was the Thermage CPT.

Lin originally filed a short form complaint in Alameda County Superior Court. The defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. They then moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Lin opposed dismissal, requested jurisdictional discovery or an evidentiary hearing, and sought permission to amend if the complaint was inadequate.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court explained that general personal jurisdiction usually exists where a corporation is incorporated or has its principal place of business, and only exceptionally elsewhere. The defendants submitted records and declarations stating that Solta and BHA were incorporated in Delaware or had their principal place of business in Bridgewater, New Jersey, and that Solta maintained a customer service center in Pleasanton, California. The court concluded that Lin had not shown the continuous and systematic California contacts required for general jurisdiction. It also rejected Lin’s attempt to establish general jurisdiction over BHA through Solta because she provided no evidence that BHA substantially controlled Solta and had not shown that Solta had the necessary California contacts.

For specific personal jurisdiction, the court considered whether the defendants purposefully conducted activities in California, whether Lin’s claims arose from or related to those activities, and whether jurisdiction would be reasonable. Lin did not address the purposeful-direction test applicable to her tort claims. The court stated that, even assuming Solta’s Pleasanton customer service center showed purposeful availment, Lin had not shown that her injury in Taiwan arose from or related to that California contact. She also presented no evidence, apart from a conclusory statement in her brief, that the Thermage CPT was designed, manufactured, or marketed in California. On the record then before it, the court found that Lin had not established specific personal jurisdiction.

The court nevertheless granted limited jurisdictional discovery because Solta formerly had its headquarters in Hayward, California and continued to operate in Pleasanton. The discovery could address the defendants’ California operations, including the design and manufacture of the Thermage CPT. Lin was limited to one document request and no more than 10 interrogatories. The court would not revisit its general-jurisdiction ruling. Discovery was to be completed by January 21, 2022, followed by supplemental briefing, after which the court would reconsider its specific-jurisdiction ruling. The court denied Lin’s request for an evidentiary hearing.

Failure to State a Claim

The court granted the defendants’ motion under Rule 12(b)(6). It found that the complaint identified the parties and four claims but supplied no supporting allegations, did not describe the circumstances or extent of Lin’s injury, and incorrectly identified the product. The court concluded that the complaint did not satisfy the basic requirement to provide a short and plain statement supporting a legally recognizable claim.

The court granted Lin’s request to amend her complaint. It ordered her to file the amended complaint by December 20, 2021. The court also stated that the defendants did not need to respond to jurisdictional discovery requests until after the amended complaint was filed.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court independently considered whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction existed because Lin argued that the defendants were California citizens like herself. It found the defendants’ public filings alone were not enough to establish their corporate citizenship, but their declarations supplied additional information. Based on those materials and the absence of contradictory evidence, the court was satisfied that diversity jurisdiction existed.

Other Rulings

The court granted the defendants’ requests for judicial notice of an Alameda County Superior Court case-management statement, California Secretary of State filings, and an FDA premarket notification.

For Lin’s judicial-notice request, the court denied notice of exhibits 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 10; granted notice of exhibit 1 from Solta’s website; and granted notice of exhibits 5, 6, and 7, which were FDA and Securities and Exchange Commission filings. The court also denied Lin’s request to strike the defendants’ declarations, her request to depose the declarants, and her request to file a further response.