{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-5219-2026-09-14", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-5219-2026-09-14)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-06", "fingerprint": "ewai:se:cbc925", "proof": "sha256:c53e6a49f50dbf068ae63512441de5fb7c34d6e6f4869f936f12b40877aac933", "jurisdiction": "se", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ca9-24-5219-2026-09-14", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "sections": [ { "title": "FOR PUBLICATION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In Re: Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Marketing, Sales Practices, and", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Products Liability", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Litigation: Insurance Subrogation", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Appeal", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "No. 24-5219", "paragraphs": [ "para_10" ] }, { "title": "8:22-ml-03052-", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "JVS-KES", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "OPINION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Appeal from the United States District Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_15" ] }, { "title": "James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Argued and Submitted November 19, 2025", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Pasadena, California", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Filed September 14, 2026", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, Marsha S. Berzon, and", "paragraphs": [ "para_21" ] }, { "title": "Opinion by Judge Miller", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "2 IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SUMMARY*", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Personal Jurisdiction", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of", "paragraphs": [ "para_27", "para_28", "para_29" ] }, { "title": "Hyundai Motor Company and Kia Corporation, Korean", "paragraphs": [ "para_31" ] }, { "title": "This appeal involves subrogation claims of plaintiff", "paragraphs": [ "para_33", "para_34" ] }, { "title": "Hyundai and Kia vehicles from model years 2011 to 2022", "paragraphs": [ "para_36", "para_37" ] }, { "title": "The panel held that the foreign manufacturers—the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Korean entities—were subject to personal jurisdiction in", "paragraphs": [ "para_40" ] }, { "title": "As a preliminary matter, the plaintiffs argued that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51" ] }, { "title": "IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT 3", "paragraphs": [ "para_53", "para_54" ] }, { "title": "To determine whether plaintiffs’ complaint was", "paragraphs": [ "para_56", "para_57", "para_58" ] }, { "title": "First, the panel considered whether the Korean entities", "paragraphs": [ "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66" ] }, { "title": "California, they expressly aimed their intentional and", "paragraphs": [ "para_68", "para_69" ] }, { "title": "In addition, the Korean entities’ U.S.-specific design", "paragraphs": [ "para_71", "para_72" ] }, { "title": "Second, the panel held that plaintiffs adequately alleged", "paragraphs": [ "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77" ] }, { "title": "Korean entities shipped to California. The panel did not", "paragraphs": [ "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83" ] }, { "title": "4 IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Third, the panel considered whether the exercise of", "paragraphs": [ "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95" ] }, { "title": "COUNSEL", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Adam M. Romney (argued), William J. Hoffmann, and", "paragraphs": [ "para_98" ] }, { "title": "California; Elliott R. Feldman and Nathan M. Dooley, Cozen", "paragraphs": [ "para_100" ] }, { "title": "Law Offices of Robert A. Stutman PC, Corona, California;", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Hal J. Kleinman, Law Offices of Robert A. Stutman PC, Fort", "paragraphs": [ "para_103" ] }, { "title": "Andrianna Kastanek (argued), Peter J. Brennan, and Michael", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Edward", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Susolik, Callahan & Blaine APLC, Irvine, California; Shon", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Morgan and Steven G. Madison, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart", "paragraphs": [ "para_108" ] }, { "title": "Ackeren, Callahan & Blaine APLC, Santa Ana, California;", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Madeline P. Skitzki, Jenna L. Conwisar, Alice S. Kim, and", "paragraphs": [ "para_111", "para_112", "para_113" ] }, { "title": "IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT 5", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "OPINION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "MILLER, Circuit Judge:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In 2020, teenagers in Milwaukee calling themselves the", "paragraphs": [ "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125" ] }, { "title": "In a master complaint filed as part of multidistrict", "paragraphs": [ "para_127" ] }, { "title": "California, insurance companies whose policyholders", "paragraphs": [ "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141" ] }, { "title": "I", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In the wake of the nationwide surge in thefts of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_144" ] }, { "title": "6 IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT", "paragraphs": [ "para_146" ] }, { "title": "Hyundai. The proceedings were consolidated in a", "paragraphs": [ "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152" ] }, { "title": "The subrogation plaintiff class consists of approximately", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "200 insurance companies that paid claims to policyholders", "paragraphs": [ "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158" ] }, { "title": "Defendants Hyundai Motor Company (HMC) and Kia", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Corporation (KC) (collectively, the Korean entities) are", "paragraphs": [ "para_161", "para_162", "para_163" ] }, { "title": "Hyundai and Kia brands. HMC owns a 34 percent stake in", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "KC, and Hyundai- and Kia-branded vehicles share many", "paragraphs": [ "para_166", "para_167" ] }, { "title": "America (HMA), the distributor of Hyundai vehicles in the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "United States, and Kia America, Inc. (KA), the distributor of", "paragraphs": [ "para_170" ] }, { "title": "In addition to suing the American subsidiaries, plaintiffs", "paragraphs": [ "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176" ] }, { "title": "IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT 7", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The complaint alleges that the Korean entities are subject", "paragraphs": [ "para_179", "para_180" ] }, { "title": "Korean entities and California. First, plaintiffs allege that the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Korean entities sent thousands of shipments of vehicles", "paragraphs": [ "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190" ] }, { "title": "The Korean entities moved to dismiss for lack of", "paragraphs": [ "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs also moved for jurisdictional discovery to further", "paragraphs": [ "para_200", "para_201", "para_202" ] }, { "title": "The Korean entities argued in reply that the “shipping", "paragraphs": [ "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209" ] }, { "title": "Origin” from Korea, meaning that “the buyer accepts the title", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "8 IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT", "paragraphs": [ "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216" ] }, { "title": "States. The American subsidiaries arrange “port vehicle", "paragraphs": [ "para_218", "para_219" ] }, { "title": "The district court dismissed the claims against the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Korean entities for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court", "paragraphs": [ "para_222" ] }, { "title": "Korean entities had intentionally aimed their shipments to", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "California, and that even if they did, plaintiffs failed to show", "paragraphs": [ "para_225" ] }, { "title": "California-related conduct. The district court also denied", "paragraphs": [ "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs appeal. We review de novo the district court’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_233", "para_234" ] }, { "title": "II", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The service of a summons “establishes personal", "paragraphs": [ "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240" ] }, { "title": "374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004). In California, state courts", "paragraphs": [ "para_242", "para_243" ] }, { "title": "IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT 9", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Clause. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10 (West 2026); see", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 800–01. The Due Process", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Clause permits the exercise of jurisdiction over a non-", "paragraphs": [ "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252" ] }, { "title": "Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). The defendant’s contacts", "paragraphs": [ "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257" ] }, { "title": "General jurisdiction “extends to ‘any and all claims’ brought", "paragraphs": [ "para_259", "para_260" ] }, { "title": "Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 358 (2021)", "paragraphs": [ "para_262" ] }, { "title": "564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)). A court may exercise general", "paragraphs": [ "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs do not argue that the Korean entities are subject to", "paragraphs": [ "para_269", "para_270", "para_271" ] }, { "title": "We have articulated a three-part test for specific personal", "paragraphs": [ "para_273" ] }, { "title": "(1) the defendant must either purposefully", "paragraphs": [ "para_275", "para_276" ] }, { "title": "10 IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT", "paragraphs": [ "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284", "para_285", "para_286" ] }, { "title": "The plaintiff has the burden of proving the first two", "paragraphs": [ "para_288" ] }, { "title": "2015). If the plaintiff satisfies that burden, “the burden then", "paragraphs": [ "para_290", "para_291" ] }, { "title": "Foods, 874 F.3d at 1068–69 (internal quotation marks", "paragraphs": [ "para_293" ] }, { "title": "III", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "As a preliminary matter, plaintiffs argue that the district", "paragraphs": [ "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299" ] }, { "title": "496, 502 (9th Cir. 2023). But the court “cannot ‘assume the", "paragraphs": [ "para_301", "para_302", "para_303", "para_304" ] }, { "title": "1977)). “If both sides submit affidavits, then ‘[c]onflicts", "paragraphs": [ "para_306", "para_307", "para_308", "para_309" ] }, { "title": "IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT 11", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Although plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Korean entities advertised vehicles and controlled aspects of", "paragraphs": [ "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321", "para_322" ] }, { "title": "IV", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "We now turn to whether plaintiffs’ complaint was", "paragraphs": [ "para_325", "para_326" ] }, { "title": "Korean entities purposefully directed their activities toward", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "California or purposefully availed themselves of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_329", "para_330" ] }, { "title": "California-related activities; and third, whether the exercise", "paragraphs": [ "para_332", "para_333" ] }, { "title": "A", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The first part of the test for specific personal jurisdiction", "paragraphs": [ "para_336", "para_337", "para_338", "para_339" ] }, { "title": "(quoting Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir. 2006) (en", "paragraphs": [ "para_342" ] }, { "title": "12 IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT", "paragraphs": [ "para_344", "para_345" ] }, { "title": "SuperTECH, Inc. v. My Choice Software, LLC, 158 F.4th", "paragraphs": [ "para_347" ] }, { "title": "80 F.4th at 1088 (observing that we typically apply the", "paragraphs": [ "para_349", "para_350", "para_351", "para_352", "para_353" ] }, { "title": "71 F.4th 1154, 1162 (9th Cir. 2023)). Because plaintiffs", "paragraphs": [ "para_355", "para_356", "para_357", "para_358", "para_359", "para_360" ] }, { "title": "539 F.3d at 1016). We examine whether the defendant", "paragraphs": [ "para_362", "para_363", "para_364" ] }, { "title": "F.4th at 503 (quoting Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at 359). A", "paragraphs": [ "para_366", "para_367" ] }, { "title": "592 U.S. at 359 (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Mag., Inc., 465", "paragraphs": [ "para_369" ] }, { "title": "Purposeful direction requires that the defendant commit", "paragraphs": [ "para_371", "para_372", "para_373", "para_374", "para_375", "para_376" ] }, { "title": "IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT 13", "paragraphs": [ "para_378", "para_379" ] }, { "title": "Wärtsilä N. Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 459 (9th Cir. 2007)", "paragraphs": [ "para_381" ] }, { "title": "112 (1987) (plurality opinion)). Instead, our approach—the", "paragraphs": [ "para_383" ] }, { "title": "503—requires a defendant to “indicate an intent or purpose", "paragraphs": [ "para_385" ] }, { "title": "112 (plurality opinion). The plurality in Asahi gave", "paragraphs": [ "para_387", "para_388", "para_389" ] }, { "title": "State, advertising in the forum State, establishing channels", "paragraphs": [ "para_391", "para_392", "para_393" ] }, { "title": "Court has elsewhere recognized that “physical entry into the", "paragraphs": [ "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398", "para_399", "para_400", "para_401", "para_402" ] }, { "title": "First, even though the Korean entities did not themselves", "paragraphs": [ "para_404", "para_405", "para_406", "para_407" ] }, { "title": "California’s ports. Walden, 571 U.S. at 288 n.7 (internal", "paragraphs": [ "para_409" ] }, { "title": "783, 789 (1984)). We held in Yamashita that “shipments to", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "14 IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT", "paragraphs": [ "para_412", "para_413", "para_414", "para_415", "para_416", "para_417" ] }, { "title": "The Korean entities characterize this aspect of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_419", "para_420", "para_421", "para_422", "para_423", "para_424", "para_425", "para_426", "para_427", "para_428", "para_429", "para_430", "para_431" ] }, { "title": "American subsidiaries to their foreign parent entities. See", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1015, 1024 (9th", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Cir. 2017) (expressing uncertainty “on the question of", "paragraphs": [ "para_435" ] }, { "title": "Rather, by placing the vehicles on ships bound for California", "paragraphs": [ "para_437", "para_438" ] }, { "title": "Second, the Korean entities’ U.S.-specific design", "paragraphs": [ "para_440", "para_441", "para_442" ] }, { "title": "United States does not, standing alone, establish targeting of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "California because a defendant’s “nationwide contacts” do", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT 15", "paragraphs": [ "para_446", "para_447", "para_448" ] }, { "title": "Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 886 (2011) (plurality opinion)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(finding no purposeful availment where foreign", "paragraphs": [ "para_451", "para_452", "para_453" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs do not argue that the Korean entities’ decision to", "paragraphs": [ "para_455", "para_456", "para_457" ] }, { "title": "We held in Briskin, however, that “differential targeting”", "paragraphs": [ "para_459" ] }, { "title": "58 (citation omitted). Instead, a defendant “‘expressly aims’", "paragraphs": [ "para_461", "para_462", "para_463" ] }, { "title": "(first quoting Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at 359; and then", "paragraphs": [ "para_465" ] }, { "title": "1218, 1230 (9th Cir. 2011)). Although that case dealt with", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Internet platforms, its logic applies with equal force to the", "paragraphs": [ "para_468", "para_469", "para_470", "para_471", "para_472", "para_473", "para_474" ] }, { "title": "World-Wide Volkswagen, in which the Court explained that", "paragraphs": [ "para_476", "para_477" ] }, { "title": "16 IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT", "paragraphs": [ "para_479", "para_480", "para_481", "para_482", "para_483", "para_484", "para_485", "para_486" ] }, { "title": "Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at 363 (alteration in original)", "paragraphs": [ "para_488" ] }, { "title": "We do not suggest that the U.S.-specific design would", "paragraphs": [ "para_490" ] }, { "title": "California. But the combination of the Korean entities’", "paragraphs": [ "para_492", "para_493", "para_494", "para_495" ] }, { "title": "Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 479 (1985);", "paragraphs": [ "para_497" ] }, { "title": "Enters., 22 F.4th at 861 (“A corporation deliberately extends", "paragraphs": [ "para_499", "para_500", "para_501", "para_502", "para_503", "para_504" ] }, { "title": "B", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs have also adequately alleged that their claims", "paragraphs": [ "para_507", "para_508", "para_509" ] }, { "title": "IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT 17", "paragraphs": [ "para_511", "para_512", "para_513", "para_514", "para_515", "para_516", "para_517" ] }, { "title": "62 F.4th at 506. The “relates to” test does not require a causal", "paragraphs": [ "para_519", "para_520" ] }, { "title": "For example, “a plaintiff’s injury relates to a defendant’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_522", "para_523", "para_524", "para_525", "para_526" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the Korean entities’", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "California contacts because plaintiffs’ injuries were caused", "paragraphs": [ "para_529" ] }, { "title": "California. The complaint alleges that “HMC shipped over", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "7,500 shipments of vehicles and parts through California’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_532", "para_533", "para_534", "para_535", "para_536", "para_537", "para_538", "para_539", "para_540", "para_541", "para_542" ] }, { "title": "There, we held that a plaintiff injured by a defective battery", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "18 IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT", "paragraphs": [ "para_545", "para_546", "para_547", "para_548", "para_549", "para_550", "para_551", "para_552", "para_553", "para_554", "para_555", "para_556", "para_557", "para_558" ] }, { "title": "U.S. at 362. To the extent that the Korean entities’ shipment", "paragraphs": [ "para_560", "para_561", "para_562", "para_563" ] }, { "title": "Defendants have not argued that the “arises out of or", "paragraphs": [ "para_565", "para_566" ] }, { "title": "Co. v. Superior Ct., 582 U.S. 255, 265 (2017). Because", "paragraphs": [ "para_568", "para_569", "para_570", "para_571", "para_572" ] }, { "title": "C", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Because plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient at the", "paragraphs": [ "para_575", "para_576" ] }, { "title": "IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT 19", "paragraphs": [ "para_578", "para_579" ] }, { "title": "(quoting Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802). We have held", "paragraphs": [ "para_581", "para_582", "para_583", "para_584", "para_585", "para_586", "para_587", "para_588", "para_589", "para_590" ] }, { "title": "Freestream Aircraft (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Aero L. Grp., 905", "paragraphs": [ "para_592" ] }, { "title": "The district court did not consider the reasonableness of", "paragraphs": [ "para_594", "para_595", "para_596", "para_597", "para_598", "para_599", "para_600", "para_601" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "FOR PUBLICATION", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "In Re: Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "Marketing, Sales Practices, and", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "Products Liability", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "Litigation: Insurance Subrogation", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "Appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "No. 24-5219", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "D.C. No.", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "8:22-ml-03052-", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "JVS-KES", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "OPINION", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "Appeal from the United States District Court", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "for the Central District of California", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "Argued and Submitted November 19, 2025", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "Pasadena, California", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "Filed September 14, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, Marsha S. Berzon, and", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "Eric D. Miller, Circuit Judges.", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "Opinion by Judge Miller", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "2 IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "SUMMARY*", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "Personal Jurisdiction", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "plaintiff insurance companies’ complaint for lack of", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "personal jurisdiction in a putative nationwide products-", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "liability and consumer protection class action against", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "Hyundai Motor Company and Kia Corporation, Korean", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "vehicle manufacturers and their American subsidiaries.", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "This appeal involves subrogation claims of plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "insurance companies whose policyholders suffered losses", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "from thefts or attempted thefts. They alleged that particular", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "Hyundai and Kia vehicles from model years 2011 to 2022", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "were defectively designed because the lack of an engine", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "immobilizer left them vulnerable to theft.", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "The panel held that the foreign manufacturers—the", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "Korean entities—were subject to personal jurisdiction in", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "California.", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "As a preliminary matter, the plaintiffs argued that the", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "district court improperly weighed competing evidence in", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "ruling on the motion to dismiss. Although plaintiffs alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "in their complaint that the Korean entities advertised", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "vehicles and controlled aspects of the vehicles’ distribution", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "in the United States, defendants submitted declarations", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "expressly contradicting those allegations. But plaintiffs did", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "not contest the declarations except by pointing back to the", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "allegations in their complaint. The panel held that the", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT 3", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "district court correctly ignored plaintiffs’ contradicted and", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "unsupported allegations.", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "To determine whether plaintiffs’ complaint was", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "sufficient, at the pleading stage, to establish specific personal", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "jurisdiction in California, the panel applied the three-part test", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "for non-resident defendants.", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "First, the panel considered whether the Korean entities", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "purposefully directed their activities toward California or", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "purposefully availed themselves of the privileges of", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "conducting activities there. The panel concluded that", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "plaintiffs’ complaint, taken as a whole, plausibly alleged that", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "the Korean entities satisfied the purposeful availment and", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "direction tests. Even though the Korean entities did not", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "themselves sell the allegedly defective vehicles in", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "California, they expressly aimed their intentional and", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "allegedly tortious actions at California by sending thousands", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "of shipments of vehicles to and through California’s ports.", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "In addition, the Korean entities’ U.S.-specific design", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "supported the conclusion that they purposefully directed the", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "defective vehicles to California.", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "Second, the panel held that plaintiffs adequately alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "that their claims arose out of or were related to the Korean", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "entities’ California-related activities. Plaintiffs’ claims arose", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "out of the Korean entities’ California contacts because", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "plaintiffs’ injuries were caused by the products that the", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "Korean entities shipped to California. The panel did not", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "consider whether the analysis of specific personal", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "jurisdiction might be different for the state-law claims", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "premised on the losses of insureds who were injured outside", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "of California because defendants forfeited any such", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "challenge on appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "4 IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "Third, the panel considered whether the exercise of", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "jurisdiction would be reasonable. Because plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage to satisfy the", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "first two parts of the specific jurisdiction test, the burden", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "shifted to the Korean entities to present a compelling case", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "that the exercise of jurisdiction was not reasonable. Because", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "the district court did not consider the reasonableness of", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "exercising personal jurisdiction over the Korean entities, and", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "the parties did not brief that issue on appeal, the panel left it", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "to the district court on remand to resolve that issue in the first", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "instance.", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "COUNSEL", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "Adam M. Romney (argued), William J. Hoffmann, and", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "Susan M. Benson, Grotefeld Hoffmann LLP, Sherman Oaks,", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "California; Elliott R. Feldman and Nathan M. Dooley, Cozen", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "O'Connor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Timothy E. Cary,", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "Law Offices of Robert A. Stutman PC, Corona, California;", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "Hal J. Kleinman, Law Offices of Robert A. Stutman PC, Fort", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "Washington, Pennsylvania; for Plaintiff-Appellant.", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "Andrianna Kastanek (argued), Peter J. Brennan, and Michael", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Edward", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "Susolik, Callahan & Blaine APLC, Irvine, California; Shon", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "Morgan and Steven G. Madison, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "& Sullivan LLP, Los Angeles, California; John D. Van", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "Ackeren, Callahan & Blaine APLC, Santa Ana, California;", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "Madeline P. Skitzki, Jenna L. Conwisar, Alice S. Kim, and", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "Kate T. Spelman, Jenner & Block LLP, Los Angeles,", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "California; Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP,", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "Chicago, Illinois; for Defendants-Appellees.", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT 5", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "OPINION", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "MILLER, Circuit Judge:", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "In 2020, teenagers in Milwaukee calling themselves the", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "“Kia Boyz” on social media platforms popularized a method", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "for stealing certain Hyundai and Kia vehicles in a matter of", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "seconds. The affected vehicles lacked an engine", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "immobilizer, an anti-theft device that prevents a car from", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "starting without an authorized key. As videos spread", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "demonstrating how to bypass the vehicles’ ignition system", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "using only a screwdriver and a USB cable, thefts of Hyundai", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "and Kia vehicles skyrocketed nationwide.", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "In a master complaint filed as part of multidistrict", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "litigation consolidated before the Central District of", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "California, insurance companies whose policyholders", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "suffered losses from thefts or attempted thefts brought a", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "putative nationwide products-liability and consumer-", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "protection class action, including various state-specific", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "subclasses, against the Korean vehicle manufacturers and", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "their American subsidiaries. The insurers allege that", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "particular Hyundai and Kia vehicles from model years 2011", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "to 2022 were defectively designed because the lack of an", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "engine immobilizer left them vulnerable to theft. The", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "question before us is whether the foreign manufacturers are", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "subject to personal jurisdiction in California. We hold that", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "they are, and we therefore reverse the district court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of personal", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "jurisdiction.", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "I", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "In the wake of the nationwide surge in thefts of the", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "allegedly defective vehicles, several groups of plaintiffs filed", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "6 IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "lawsuits in courts across the country against Kia and", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "Hyundai. The proceedings were consolidated in a", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "multidistrict litigation in the Central District of California,", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "where the district court organized the proceedings into three", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "tracks: subrogation claims, consumer claims, and claims", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "brought by governmental entities. This appeal involves the", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "subrogation claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "The subrogation plaintiff class consists of approximately", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "200 insurance companies that paid claims to policyholders", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "whose vehicles were stolen or damaged in thefts or", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "attempted thefts. As subrogees to their insureds’ rights,", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "plaintiffs seek to recover the amounts they paid (and will", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "pay) on those claims, as well as related expenses.", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "Defendants Hyundai Motor Company (HMC) and Kia", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "Corporation (KC) (collectively, the Korean entities) are", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "incorporated in the Republic of Korea and have their", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "principal places of business there. They design and", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "manufacture vehicles sold around the world under the", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "Hyundai and Kia brands. HMC owns a 34 percent stake in", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "KC, and Hyundai- and Kia-branded vehicles share many", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "common components and design features. The Korean", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "entities each have an American subsidiary: Hyundai Motor", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "America (HMA), the distributor of Hyundai vehicles in the", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "United States, and Kia America, Inc. (KA), the distributor of", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "Kia vehicles in the United States.", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "In addition to suing the American subsidiaries, plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "sued the Korean entities. The operative complaint asserts", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "several causes of action, including claims for breach of", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "express and implied warranties, violations of state", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "consumer-protection statutes, fraud, unjust enrichment, and", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "negligent failure to warn.", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT 7", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "The complaint alleges that the Korean entities are subject", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "to specific personal jurisdiction in California. As relevant to", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "this appeal, plaintiffs highlight two contacts between the", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "Korean entities and California. First, plaintiffs allege that the", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "Korean entities sent thousands of shipments of vehicles", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "through California ports for sale by the American", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "subsidiaries. Second, plaintiffs allege that the Korean", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "entities designed standard-model vehicles without engine-", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "immobilizer technology specifically for the U.S. market—", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "reserving the anti-theft equipment for cars with luxury trim", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "packages—while those same standard Kia and Hyundai", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "models included engine immobilizers in Canada and other", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "foreign markets.", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "The Korean entities moved to dismiss for lack of", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs opposed the motion to", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "dismiss and submitted bills of lading supporting their", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "allegations that the Korean entities had shipped vehicles into", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "the United States through California ports. Plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "contended that more than 70 percent of HMC’s shipments to", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "the United States and approximately 77 percent of KC’s", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "shipments to the United States were sent to California ports.", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs also moved for jurisdictional discovery to further", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "develop the record on “Defendants’ imports into California”", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "and the “active steps the Defendants took to do business in", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "California,” among other subjects.", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "The Korean entities argued in reply that the “shipping", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "records show nothing more than that HMC and KC placed", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "vehicles into the stream of commerce in Korea that were then", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "imported into California by U.S. entities” for wholesale", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "distribution. They submitted declarations from the sales", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "executives of their American subsidiaries explaining that the", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "subsidiaries import vehicles from the Korean entities “FOB", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "Origin” from Korea, meaning that “the buyer accepts the title", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "8 IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "to the goods at the shipment point and assumes all risk once", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "the seller ships the product.” The declarations further", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "explained that the American subsidiaries are responsible for", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "the goods while in transit and are also responsible for all", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "import procedures once the vehicles arrive in the United", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "States. The American subsidiaries arrange “port vehicle", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "inspections, processing, unloading, and transportation", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "logistics.”", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "The district court dismissed the claims against the", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "Korean entities for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "concluded that the shipping records did not establish that the", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "Korean entities had intentionally aimed their shipments to", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "California, and that even if they did, plaintiffs failed to show", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "that their claims arise from or relate to the Korean entities’", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "California-related conduct. The district court also denied", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "plaintiffs’ request for leave for amend and plaintiffs’ motion", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "for jurisdictional discovery. The district court entered a final", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "dismissing the Korean entities from the subrogation track of", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "the multidistrict litigation.", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs appeal. We review de novo the district court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. Briskin v. Shopify,", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "Inc., 135 F.4th 739, 749–50 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc).", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "II", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "The service of a summons “establishes personal", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "jurisdiction over a defendant . . . who is subject to the", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "where the district court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P.", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "4(k)(1)(A); see Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.,", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004). In California, state courts", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "may exercise personal jurisdiction to the full extent", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT 9", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "Clause. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10 (West 2026); see", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 800–01. The Due Process", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "Clause permits the exercise of jurisdiction over a non-", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "resident defendant only if the defendant has “minimum", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "contacts” with the forum State such that the exercise of", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "jurisdiction “does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "and substantial justice.’” International Shoe Co. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting Milliken v.", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). The defendant’s contacts", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "with the forum must make it foreseeable that the defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "may be “haled into court there.” World-Wide Volkswagen", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980).", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "Personal jurisdiction can be either general or specific.", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "General jurisdiction “extends to ‘any and all claims’ brought", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "against a defendant,” whether or not they “relate to the forum", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "State or the defendant’s activity there.” Ford Motor Co. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 358 (2021)", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "(quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown,", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)). A court may exercise general", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "jurisdiction “only when a defendant is ‘essentially at home’", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "in the State”—for a corporate defendant, when it is", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "incorporated in that State or has its principal place of", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "business there. Id. (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919).", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs do not argue that the Korean entities are subject to", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "general personal jurisdiction in California. Thus, the only", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "issue before us is whether California may exercise specific", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "personal jurisdiction over the Korean entities.", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "We have articulated a three-part test for specific personal", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "jurisdiction over non-resident defendants:", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "(1) the defendant must either purposefully", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "direct his activities toward the forum or", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "purposefully avail himself of the privileges of", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "10 IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "conducting activities in the forum; (2) the", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "claim must be one that arises out of or relates", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "to the defendant’s forum-related activities;", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "comport with fair play and substantial justice,", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "i.e. it must be reasonable.", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "Impossible Foods Inc. v. Impossible X LLC, 80 F.4th 1079,", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "1086 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Axiom Foods, Inc. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "Acerchem Int’l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2017)).", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "The plaintiff has the burden of proving the first two", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "elements. Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "2015). If the plaintiff satisfies that burden, “the burden then", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "shifts to the defendant to present a compelling case that the", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable.” Axiom", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "Foods, 874 F.3d at 1068–69 (internal quotation marks", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "omitted) (quoting Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802).", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "III", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "As a preliminary matter, plaintiffs argue that the district", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "court improperly weighed competing evidence in ruling on", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "the motion to dismiss. In evaluating personal jurisdiction at", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "this stage, the court must take uncontroverted allegations in", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "the complaint as true. Yamashita v. LG Chem, Ltd., 62 F.4th", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "496, 502 (9th Cir. 2023). But the court “cannot ‘assume the", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "truth of allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "affidavit.’” LNS Enters. LLC v. Continental Motors, Inc., 22", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "F.4th 852, 858 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Data Disc, Inc. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "Systems Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1284 (9th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "1977)). “If both sides submit affidavits, then ‘[c]onflicts", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "between the parties over statements contained in affidavits", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.’” Id. (alteration in", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "original) (quoting Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011,", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "1015 (9th Cir. 2008)).", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT 11", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "Although plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "Korean entities advertised vehicles and controlled aspects of", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "the vehicles’ distribution in the United States, defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "submitted declarations expressly contradicting those", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "allegations. Had plaintiffs filed declarations in response,", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "then the district court would have been obligated to resolve", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "the conflict in plaintiffs’ favor in ruling on the motion to", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "dismiss. See LNS Enters., 22 F.4th at 858. But plaintiffs did", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "not contest the declarations except by pointing back to the", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "allegations in their complaint. The district court therefore", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "correctly ignored plaintiffs’ contradicted and unsupported", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "allegations. See Yamashita, 62 F.4th at 502.", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "IV", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "We now turn to whether plaintiffs’ complaint was", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "sufficient, at the pleading stage, to establish specific personal", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "jurisdiction in California. We consider, first, whether the", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "Korean entities purposefully directed their activities toward", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "California or purposefully availed themselves of the", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "privileges of conducting activities there; second, whether the", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "plaintiffs’ claims arise out of or relate to the Korean entities’", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "California-related activities; and third, whether the exercise", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "of jurisdiction would be reasonable. See Impossible Foods,", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "80 F.4th at 1086.", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "A", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "The first part of the test for specific personal jurisdiction", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "requires that the defendant “purposefully direct its activities", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "toward the forum state, purposefully avail itself of the", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "privileges of conducting activities there, or engage in ‘some", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "combination thereof.’” Impossible Foods, 80 F.4th at 1088", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "(quoting Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir. 2006) (en", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "banc)). For claims sounding in contract, we typically employ", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "12 IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "a purposeful availment analysis, and for claims sounding in", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "tort, we typically employ a purposeful direction analysis.", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "SuperTECH, Inc. v. My Choice Software, LLC, 158 F.4th", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "1005, 1010–11 (9th Cir. 2025); see also Impossible Foods,", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "80 F.4th at 1088 (observing that we typically apply the", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "purposeful direction test when “a defendant’s conduct", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "primarily occurs outside the forum state”). But “‘our cases", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "do not impose a rigid dividing line between’ purposeful", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "direction and purposeful availment.” Briskin, 135 F.4th at", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "751 n.10 (quoting Davis v. Cranfield Aerospace Sols., Ltd.,", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "71 F.4th 1154, 1162 (9th Cir. 2023)). Because plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "assert both contract and tort claims, we consider both", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "analyses here.", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "“To satisfy purposeful availment, ‘a defendant must have", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "performed some type of affirmative conduct which allows or", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "promotes the transaction of business within the forum", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "state.’” SuperTECH, 158 F.4th at 1011 (quoting Boschetto,", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "539 F.3d at 1016). We examine whether the defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "“deliberately reached out beyond [its] home[]—by, for", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "example, exploiting a market in the forum State or entering", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "a contractual relationship centered there.” Yamashita, 62", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "F.4th at 503 (quoting Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at 359). A", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "defendant’s availment “must be the defendant’s own choice", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "and not ‘random, isolated, or fortuitous.’” Ford Motor Co.,", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "592 U.S. at 359 (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Mag., Inc., 465", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "U.S. 770, 774 (1984)).", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "Purposeful direction requires that the defendant commit", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "an intentional act that is expressly aimed at the forum State", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "and that causes harm that the defendant knows will be", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "suffered in the forum State. Briskin, 135 F.4th at 751. Under", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "our precedent, “[t]he placement of a product into the stream", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "of commerce, without more, is not an act purposefully", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "directed toward a forum state,” even if the defendant is", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT 13", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "“aware[] that the stream of commerce may or will sweep the", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "product into the forum state.” Holland Am. Line Inc. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "Wärtsilä N. Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 459 (9th Cir. 2007)", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "(citing Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Ct., 480 U.S. 102,", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "112 (1987) (plurality opinion)). Instead, our approach—the", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "“stream-of-commerce-plus test,” Yamashita, 62 F.4th at", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "503—requires a defendant to “indicate an intent or purpose", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "to serve the market in the forum State,” Asahi, 480 U.S. at", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "112 (plurality opinion). The plurality in Asahi gave", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "examples of kinds of conduct that indicate an intent or", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "purpose to serve the market in the forum State. That conduct", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "includes “designing the product for the market in the forum", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "State, advertising in the forum State, establishing channels", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "for providing regular advice to customers in the forum State,", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "or marketing the product through a distributor who has", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum State.” Id. The", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "Court has elsewhere recognized that “physical entry into the", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "State—either by the defendant in person or through an agent,", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "goods, mail, or some other means—is certainly a relevant", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "contact” to the purposeful availment and direction analyses.", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014).", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "We conclude that plaintiffs’ complaint, taken as a whole,", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "plausibly alleges that the Korean entities satisfy the", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "purposeful availment and direction tests. Two allegations", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "support our conclusion.", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "First, even though the Korean entities did not themselves", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "sell the allegedly defective vehicles in California, they", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "nevertheless “expressly aimed their intentional, and", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "allegedly tortious, actions” at California by sending", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "thousands of shipments of vehicles to and through", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "California’s ports. Walden, 571 U.S. at 288 n.7 (internal", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "quotation marks omitted) (quoting Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "783, 789 (1984)). We held in Yamashita that “shipments to", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "14 IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "and through” a port located in the forum State are a", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "“sufficiently deliberate contact” to constitute purposeful", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "availment because both shipper and consignee “rel[y] on the", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "laws of [the forum] to protect their property while it [i]s", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "located within its jurisdiction.” 62 F.4th at 504. That is just", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "what is alleged here.", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "The Korean entities characterize this aspect of the", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "complaint as a pure stream-of-commerce theory. They", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "emphasize that the cars were shipped “free on board", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "origin”—that is, both title to the vehicles and any risk of loss", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "passed to the American subsidiaries when the vehicles were", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "loaded onto ships in Korea. But regardless of when title", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "passed, it is undisputed that the Korean entities were listed", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "as the shippers of record in the bills of lading identified by", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "plaintiffs. And the declarations submitted by the Korean", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "entities conspicuously do not deny that, as the shippers, they", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "controlled where the vehicles were shipped. This is not a", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "case in which a manufacturer sold goods to a distributor who", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "then decided independently where to ship them. Nor is it a", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "case in which plaintiffs seek to impute the conduct of the", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "American subsidiaries to their foreign parent entities. See", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1015, 1024 (9th", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "Cir. 2017) (expressing uncertainty “on the question of", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "agency theory’s application to specific jurisdiction”).", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "Rather, by placing the vehicles on ships bound for California", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "ports, the Korean entities purposefully availed themselves of", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "the forum and purposefully aimed their goods at California.", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "Second, the Korean entities’ U.S.-specific design", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "supports our conclusion that they purposefully directed the", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "allegedly defective vehicles to California. Defendants argue", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "that evidence showing that the Korean entities targeted the", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "United States does not, standing alone, establish targeting of", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "California because a defendant’s “nationwide contacts” do", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT 15", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "not demonstrate that the defendant “purposefully availed", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "itself of the privilege of doing business” in the forum State.", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "LNS Enters., 22 F.4th at 862; see also J. McIntyre Mach.,", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 886 (2011) (plurality opinion)", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "(finding no purposeful availment where foreign", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "manufacturer sold its goods through a nationwide distributor", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "where there was no evidence that manufacturer singled out", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "the forum state or otherwise directed activity there).", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs do not argue that the Korean entities’ decision to", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "manufacture cars without engine immobilizers was", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "specifically designed to appeal to California customers, as", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "distinct from consumers in other States.", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "We held in Briskin, however, that “differential targeting”", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "or a “forum-specific focus” is not required. 135 F.4th at 757–", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "58 (citation omitted). Instead, a defendant “‘expressly aims’", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "its wrongful conduct toward a forum state” when its contacts", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "are sufficiently deliberate, “even if [defendant] cultivates a", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "‘nationwide audience[] for commercial gain.’” Id. at 758", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "(first quoting Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at 359; and then", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "quoting Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "1218, 1230 (9th Cir. 2011)). Although that case dealt with", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "Internet platforms, its logic applies with equal force to the", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "facts here. As we recognized in Briskin, “requiring", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "differential targeting would have the perverse effect of", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "allowing a corporation to direct its activities toward all 50", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "states yet to escape specific personal jurisdiction in each of", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "those states for claims arising from or relating to their", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "relevant contacts in the forum state that injure that state’s", "paragraph_id": "para_473" }, { "text": "residents.” Id. That conclusion accords with Ford’s gloss on", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "World-Wide Volkswagen, in which the Court explained that", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "[i]f the sale of a product of a manufacturer or", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "distributor . . . is not simply an isolated", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "16 IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "occurrence, but arises from the efforts of the", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "manufacturer or distributor to serve, directly", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "or indirectly, the market for its product in", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "[several or all] other States, it is not", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "unreasonable to subject it to suit in one of", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "those States if its allegedly defective", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "merchandise has there been the source of", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "injury to its owner or to others.", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at 363 (alteration in original)", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "(quoting World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 297).", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "We do not suggest that the U.S.-specific design would", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "by itself be sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction in", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "California. But the combination of the Korean entities’", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "shipments to California ports and U.S.-specific design", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "demonstrates that defendants “purposefully ‘reach[ed] out", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "beyond’ their” home to “‘deliberately exploi[t]’ a market in", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "the forum State.” Walden, 571 U.S. at 285 (first quoting", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 479 (1985);", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "and then quoting Keeton, 465 U.S. at 781); see also LNS", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "Enters., 22 F.4th at 861 (“A corporation deliberately extends", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "its business into a forum when it has ‘continuously and", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "deliberately exploited [a State’s] market’ for the", "paragraph_id": "para_500" }, { "text": "corporation’s products.” (quoting Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "at 364)). Those contacts are not “random, isolated, or", "paragraph_id": "para_502" }, { "text": "fortuitous,” Keeton, 465 U.S. at 774, and they are sufficient", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "to satisfy the first part of the personal jurisdiction test.", "paragraph_id": "para_504" }, { "text": "B", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs have also adequately alleged that their claims", "paragraph_id": "para_506" }, { "text": "arise out of or are related to the Korean entities’ California", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "contacts. Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at 362. In conducting", "paragraph_id": "para_508" }, { "text": "this second part of the specific personal jurisdiction inquiry,", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT 17", "paragraph_id": "para_510" }, { "text": "“we consider the extent of the defendant’s contacts with the", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "forum and the degree to which the plaintiff’s suit is related", "paragraph_id": "para_512" }, { "text": "to those contacts.” Yahoo! Inc., 433 F.3d at 1210. “The", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "‘arises out of’ test requires the defendant’s contacts with the", "paragraph_id": "para_514" }, { "text": "forum to be a but-for cause of the plaintiff’s claims.” Doe v.", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "Deutsche Lufthansa AG, 157 F.4th 1103, 1112 (9th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_516" }, { "text": "2025); see also Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at 362; Yamashita,", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "62 F.4th at 506. The “relates to” test does not require a causal", "paragraph_id": "para_518" }, { "text": "relationship but nevertheless demands a “close connection", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "between contacts and injury.” Yamashita, 62 F.4th at 506.", "paragraph_id": "para_520" }, { "text": "For example, “a plaintiff’s injury relates to a defendant’s", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "forum contacts if similar injuries will tend to be caused by", "paragraph_id": "para_522" }, { "text": "those contacts” or “if the defendant should have foreseen the", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "risk that its contacts might cause injuries like that of the", "paragraph_id": "para_524" }, { "text": "plaintiff.” Id. at 505–06. Because the “arises out of” test is", "paragraph_id": "para_525" }, { "text": "satisfied here, we need not consider the “relates to” test.", "paragraph_id": "para_526" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the Korean entities’", "paragraph_id": "para_527" }, { "text": "California contacts because plaintiffs’ injuries were caused", "paragraph_id": "para_528" }, { "text": "by the products that the Korean entities shipped to", "paragraph_id": "para_529" }, { "text": "California. The complaint alleges that “HMC shipped over", "paragraph_id": "para_530" }, { "text": "7,500 shipments of vehicles and parts through California’s", "paragraph_id": "para_531" }, { "text": "ports for delivery and sale to California facilities” and that", "paragraph_id": "para_532" }, { "text": "“KC initiated over 5,000 shipments of vehicles and parts", "paragraph_id": "para_533" }, { "text": "through California’s ports for delivery and sale to California", "paragraph_id": "para_534" }, { "text": "facilities.” As defendants acknowledged, the logical", "paragraph_id": "para_535" }, { "text": "inference from those allegations is that “HMC and KC sold", "paragraph_id": "para_536" }, { "text": "vehicles to HMA and KA in Korea, knowing that some of", "paragraph_id": "para_537" }, { "text": "the vehicles could potentially end up in California” and that", "paragraph_id": "para_538" }, { "text": "“Hyundai- and Kia-branded vehicles ended up in California", "paragraph_id": "para_539" }, { "text": "and . . . some insureds were allegedly injured in California", "paragraph_id": "para_540" }, { "text": "due to the alleged ‘defect.’”", "paragraph_id": "para_541" }, { "text": "That inference distinguishes this case from Yamashita.", "paragraph_id": "para_542" }, { "text": "There, we held that a plaintiff injured by a defective battery", "paragraph_id": "para_543" }, { "text": "18 IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT", "paragraph_id": "para_544" }, { "text": "in Hawaii failed to show that “his injuries arose out of any", "paragraph_id": "para_545" }, { "text": "[forum] contacts” because, although he alleged that the", "paragraph_id": "para_546" }, { "text": "defendants had shipped batteries to the port of Honolulu, he", "paragraph_id": "para_547" }, { "text": "did “not allege that [the defendants] shipped the subject", "paragraph_id": "para_548" }, { "text": "battery”—that is, the battery that injured him—“into the port", "paragraph_id": "para_549" }, { "text": "of Honolulu.” 62 F.4th at 506. Here, by contrast, the", "paragraph_id": "para_550" }, { "text": "shipping records show that more than 70 percent of the", "paragraph_id": "para_551" }, { "text": "vehicles the Korean entities shipped to the United States", "paragraph_id": "para_552" }, { "text": "were shipped through California ports. It is therefore", "paragraph_id": "para_553" }, { "text": "reasonable to infer that many of the allegedly defective", "paragraph_id": "para_554" }, { "text": "vehicles at issue in this litigation were shipped to California", "paragraph_id": "para_555" }, { "text": "ports before ending up in California, and thus that, as to", "paragraph_id": "para_556" }, { "text": "those vehicles, plaintiffs’ “claim[s] came about because of", "paragraph_id": "para_557" }, { "text": "the defendant[s’] in-state conduct.” Ford Motor Co., 592", "paragraph_id": "para_558" }, { "text": "U.S. at 362. To the extent that the Korean entities’ shipment", "paragraph_id": "para_559" }, { "text": "of allegedly defective vehicles through California’s ports is", "paragraph_id": "para_560" }, { "text": "a but-for cause of the injuries to plaintiffs, the claims arise", "paragraph_id": "para_561" }, { "text": "out of defendants’ California contacts. See Panavision Int’l,", "paragraph_id": "para_562" }, { "text": "L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1322 (9th Cir. 1998).", "paragraph_id": "para_563" }, { "text": "Defendants have not argued that the “arises out of or", "paragraph_id": "para_564" }, { "text": "relate to” analysis differs for the proposed nationwide class", "paragraph_id": "para_565" }, { "text": "and the state-specific subclasses. Cf. Bristol-Myers Squibb", "paragraph_id": "para_566" }, { "text": "Co. v. Superior Ct., 582 U.S. 255, 265 (2017). Because", "paragraph_id": "para_567" }, { "text": "defendants have forfeited any such challenge on appeal, we", "paragraph_id": "para_568" }, { "text": "do not consider whether the analysis of specific personal", "paragraph_id": "para_569" }, { "text": "jurisdiction might be different for the state-law claims", "paragraph_id": "para_570" }, { "text": "premised on the losses of insureds who were injured outside", "paragraph_id": "para_571" }, { "text": "of California.", "paragraph_id": "para_572" }, { "text": "C", "paragraph_id": "para_573" }, { "text": "Because plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient at the", "paragraph_id": "para_574" }, { "text": "pleading stage to satisfy the first two parts of the specific", "paragraph_id": "para_575" }, { "text": "personal jurisdiction test, the burden shifts to the Korean", "paragraph_id": "para_576" }, { "text": "IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT 19", "paragraph_id": "para_577" }, { "text": "entities to “‘present a compelling case’ that the exercise of", "paragraph_id": "para_578" }, { "text": "jurisdiction is not reasonable.” Briskin, 135 F.4th at 761", "paragraph_id": "para_579" }, { "text": "(quoting Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802). We have held", "paragraph_id": "para_580" }, { "text": "that courts should assess the reasonableness of exercising", "paragraph_id": "para_581" }, { "text": "jurisdiction by weighing seven factors: (1) the extent of the", "paragraph_id": "para_582" }, { "text": "defendant’s purposeful interjection into the forum State’s", "paragraph_id": "para_583" }, { "text": "affairs; (2) the burden on the defendant of defending against", "paragraph_id": "para_584" }, { "text": "litigation in the forum; (3) the extent of conflict with the", "paragraph_id": "para_585" }, { "text": "sovereignty of the defendant’s State; (4) the forum State’s", "paragraph_id": "para_586" }, { "text": "interest in adjudicating the dispute; (5) the most efficient", "paragraph_id": "para_587" }, { "text": "judicial resolution of the controversy; (6) the importance of", "paragraph_id": "para_588" }, { "text": "the forum to the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and", "paragraph_id": "para_589" }, { "text": "effective relief; and (7) the existence of an alternative forum.", "paragraph_id": "para_590" }, { "text": "Freestream Aircraft (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Aero L. Grp., 905", "paragraph_id": "para_591" }, { "text": "F.3d 597, 607–09 (9th Cir. 2018).", "paragraph_id": "para_592" }, { "text": "The district court did not consider the reasonableness of", "paragraph_id": "para_593" }, { "text": "exercising personal jurisdiction over the Korean entities, and", "paragraph_id": "para_594" }, { "text": "the parties have not briefed that issue on appeal. We leave it", "paragraph_id": "para_595" }, { "text": "to the district court on remand to resolve that issue in the first", "paragraph_id": "para_596" }, { "text": "instance. In light of our resolution of plaintiffs’ arguments", "paragraph_id": "para_597" }, { "text": "based on the present record, we need not consider whether", "paragraph_id": "para_598" }, { "text": "the district court abused its discretion in denying", "paragraph_id": "para_599" }, { "text": "jurisdictional discovery.", "paragraph_id": "para_600" }, { "text": "REVERSED and REMANDED.", "paragraph_id": "para_601" } ], "word_count": 4880, "cites": [ "326 U.S. 310", "311 U.S. 457", "444 U.S. 286", "592 U.S. 351", "564 U.S. 915", "465\nU.S. 770", "480 U.S. 102", "571 U.S. 277", "465 U.S.\n783", "564 U.S. 873", "471 U.S. 462", "582 U.S. 255", "135 F.4th 739", "374 F.3d 797", "80 F.4th 1079", "874 F.3d 1064", "780 F.3d 1206", "62 F.4th\n496", "22\nF.4th 852", "557 F.2d 1280", "539 F.3d 1011", "433 F.3d 1199", "158 F.4th\n1005", "71 F.4th 1154", "485 F.3d 450", "851 F.3d 1015", "647 F.3d\n1218", "157 F.4th 1103", "141 F.3d 1316", "905\nF.3d 597" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "7060f85467fb4b5c7a27f1f8a5575259add007dc57628b79edfdaee741e07686", "source_url": "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/14/24-5219.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-06T09:03:23.573+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca9-24-5219-2026-09-14", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-24-5219-2026-09-14", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-24-5219-2026-09-14", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca9-24-5219-2026-09-14", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "7060f85467fb4b5c7a27f1f8a5575259add007dc57628b79edfdaee741e07686", "recomputed_sha256": "7060f85467fb4b5c7a27f1f8a5575259add007dc57628b79edfdaee741e07686", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-06T16:29:35.271Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:c53e6a49f50dbf068ae63512441de5fb7c34d6e6f4869f936f12b40877aac933", "version": "legal-2026-10-06", "expires": "2026-10-07T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-06+legal-2026-10-06+2026-10-06T16:19:13", "content_hash": "sha256:c53e6a49f50dbf068ae63512441de5fb7c34d6e6f4869f936f12b40877aac933", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-06T17:29:35.445Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-5219-2026-09-14", "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering" }