Tieszen v. EBay, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RYAN TIESZEN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
EBAY, INC., LG CHEM LTD., LG CHEM
AMERICA, INC., VAPAH, INC., and the
FIRST DOE through THIRTIETH DOE,
inclusive,
Defendants.
4:21-CV-04002-KES
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LG
CHEM AMERICA INC.’S MOTION TO
DISMISS AND DENYING DEFENDANT
LG CHEM, LTD.’S MOTION TO
DISMISS
Plaintiff, Ryan Tieszen, filed this suit in the State of South Dakota
Second Circuit Court for Minnehaha County. Docket 1-1. Defendants include
eBay, Inc., LG Chem, Ltd. (LG Chem), LG Chem America, Inc. (LGCAI), Vapah,
Inc., and DOES 1 through 30. Id. LGCAI removed the matter to federal court
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(b), and 1446. Docket 1. LGCAI and LG Chem
each move to dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Dockets 14, 29. Tieszen opposes both motions.
Dockets 20, 38.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Tieszen is a resident of the state of South Dakota. Docket 1-1 ¶ 1.
Tieszen alleges that he was injured by two LG 18650 lithium-ion batteries that
were purchased from Vapah, a third-party Seller on eBay’s online commerce
Case 4:21-cv-04002-KES Document 47 Filed 09/10/21 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

2
platform, for use in his e-cigarette device. Id. ¶¶ 2, 11, 15. The batteries “burst
into flames” in his pocket on December 14, 2017, causing first and second-
degree burns to his right thigh. Id. ¶¶ 12, 15.
LG Chem is a business entity headquartered in Seoul, South Korea.
Docket 1 ¶ 9; Docket 1-1 ¶ 5. LG Chem manufactures 18650 lithium-ion
battery cells. Docket 30. LGCAI is incorporated in Delaware with its principal
place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. Docket 1 ¶ 10; Docket 1-1 ¶ 6. LGCAI
sells and distributes petrochemical materials and products. Docket 15 at 2.
Tieszen alleges both LG Chem and LGCAI were in the business of designing,
manufacturing, marketing, and distributing the 18650 lithium-ion batteries
that caused his injuries. Docket 1-1 ¶ 34.
LG Chem and LGCAI state they have never conducted business with
eBay or Vapah. Dockets 15, 30. LG Chem contends that the type of battery at
issue is manufactured by LG Chem for “specific applications by sophisticated
companies.” Docket 31 ¶ 19. LG Chem denies having sold or authorized any
distributor, retailer, or re-seller to sell any lithium-ion cells as “standalone,
removable batteries in e-cigarette devices or for any other purpose.” Id ¶¶ 24-
25.
LGCAI declares it has never designed, manufactured, advertised, or sold
any lithium-ion battery for use by “individual consumers as standalone,
removable batteries.” Docket 15 at 2. LGCAI has no manufacturing plants in
South Dakota and focuses on sales and distribution of petrochemical materials
and products. Id. LG Chem and Tieszen submitted supplemental briefs
Case 4:21-cv-04002-KES Document 47 Filed 09/10/21 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

3
regarding the United States Supreme Court decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Mont.
Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) and its implication on questions of
personal jurisdiction. Dockets 41, 42.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), defendants may move to
dismiss a claim for lack of personal jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). “To
survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff need make only a prima facie case that
personal jurisdiction exists.” Downing v. Goldman Phipps, PLLC, 764 F.3d 906,
911 (8th Cir. 2014) (citing Wessels, Arnold & Henderson v. Nat’l Med. Waste,
Inc., 65 F.3d 1427, 1431 (8th Cir. 1995)). But when personal jurisdiction is
challenged by a defendant’s affidavits and motions, the plaintiff bears the
burden of proving jurisdiction by the same means, not mere allegations of the
complaint. Dever v. Hentzen Coatings, Inc., 380 F.3d 1070, 1072-73 (8th Cir.
2004).
The jurisdiction of federal courts is ordinarily determined by laws of the
state in which the court is located. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 125
(2014). South Dakota law specifies that a person is subject to jurisdiction of
state courts through “any act, the basis of which is not inconsistent with the
Constitution . . . .” SDCL § 15-7-2(14). Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether
the exercise of South Dakota’s long-arm statute to impose this court’s
jurisdiction comports with federal due process. See id. Due process requires a
defendant have “certain minimum contacts with [the State] such that the
Case 4:21-cv-04002-KES Document 47 Filed 09/10/21 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

4
maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and
substantial
justice.’ ” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting
Milliken v. Mayer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)).
The Supreme Court has recognized two types of personal jurisdiction:
“general (sometimes called all-purpose) jurisdiction and specific (sometimes
called case-linked) jurisdiction.” Ford, 141 S. Ct. at 1024. General jurisdiction
is established when a defendant is “essentially at home” in the state. Id. A
corporation’s place of incorporation and principal place of business are
“paradigm” forums in all but “exceptional case[s].” Id. In the case of large
national or global corporations, the standard is not merely “doing business”
within a forum state, which would render those defendants “at home”
everywhere they operate, but is based on claims having a connection to the
forum State. See Daimler, 571 U.S. at 139 n.20 (2014).
Specific jurisdiction covers a narrower class of claims and requires the
defendant to take “some act by which [it] purposefully avails itself of the
privilege of conducting activities within the forum State.” Ford, 141 S. Ct. at
1024 (alteration in original) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253
(1958)). “The contacts must be the defendant’s own choice and not ‘random,
isolated, or fortuitous.’ ” Id. at 1025 (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Mag., Inc., 465
U.S. 770, 774 (1984)). The contacts must show the defendant engaged in
deliberate activity to exploit the forum state’s market or enter a contractual
relationship centered in the forum state. Id. (citing Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S.
Case 4:21-cv-04002-KES Document 47 Filed 09/10/21 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

5
277, 285 (2014)). Because the defendant is not “at home” in the forum state
though, there needs to be a showing that the plaintiff’s claims “ ‘arise out of or
relate to the defendant’s contacts’ with the forum.” Id. (quoting Bristol-Myers
Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct., 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1780 (2017)).
The Eighth Circuit employs a five-factor, totality of the circumstances
test to determine whether specific jurisdiction exists. Kaliannan v. Liang, 2
F.4th 727, 733 (8th Cir. 2021). Under that test, the court analyzes: “(1) the
nature and quality of [defendant’s] contacts with the forum state; (2) the
quantity of such contacts; (3) the relation of the cause of action to the contacts;
(4) the interest of the forum state in providing a forum for its residents; and (5)
convenience of the parties.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Whaley v.
Esebag, 946 F.3d 447, 452 (8th Cir. 2020)). The first three factors are of
“primary importance,” while the last two are of less importance and not
dispositive. Id.
DISCUSSION
I. 	General Jurisdiction
A. 	LGCAI
LGCAI argues that there is no basis for this court to exercise general
jurisdiction over it. Dockets 14, 15 at 4. Conversely, Tieszen contends that this
court can exercise general jurisdiction over LGCAI. Docket 20 at 4. Tieszen
concedes that LGCAI is not incorporated in South Dakota, nor does LGCAI
have its principal place of business in South Dakota. Id. at 5. But Tieszen
argues that LGCAI’s “operations in South Dakota are apparent, extensive, and
Case 4:21-cv-04002-KES Document 47 Filed 09/10/21 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

6
exceptional” such that LGCAI is essentially at home in South Dakota. Id.
(emphasis omitted); see also BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrell, 137 S.Ct. 1549, 1558
(2017) (noting that the exercise of general jurisdiction is not limited to a
defendant’s place of incorporation and principal place of business, but “in an
exceptional case, a corporate defendant’s operations in another forum may be
so substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation at home in
that State.” (internal quotations omitted)).
Here, it is uncontested that LGCAI is incorporated in Delaware and has
its principal place of business in Georgia. Docket 1-1 ¶ 6. Thus, the only
question is whether this is an “exceptional case” where LGCAI’s operations in
South Dakota render it essentially at home in the state. See BNSF, 137 S.Ct. at
1558. LGCAI submitted an affidavit of HyunSoo Kim, the Compliance Manager
and authorized representative for LGCAI, in support of its motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction. Docket 16. Kim asserts that LGCAI is not
registered to do business in South Dakota and does not have a registered agent
for service of process in South Dakota. Id. ¶ 4. Additionally, Kim states that
LGCAI does not have physical office space, does not have any employees, and
does not own or lease any real property in South Dakota. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. LGCAI’s
operations in South Dakota are limited to the sale of petrochemical materials
and products. Id. ¶ 15. Tieszen argues that the sale of these petrochemical
materials and products to South Dakota consumers generate unknown
amounts of revenue for LGCAI. Docket 20 at 5. Tieszen also contends that
“LGCAI’s products are used as components to a variety of products that are
Case 4:21-cv-04002-KES Document 47 Filed 09/10/21 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

7
sold in South Dakota to South Dakota citizens[,]” and “the products which
utilize LGCAI’s materials [are] bought and utilized by a large number of South
Dakotans, and especially, [Tieszen].” Id. at 6. Tieszen did not submit any
affidavits or exhibits to controvert Kim’s affidavit. Instead, Tieszen relies on his
compliant and Kim’s affidavit for his contentions. Id. at 5-6.
Given the evidence before the court, Tieszen fails to carry his burden to
show that LGCAI is subject to general jurisdiction in South Dakota. Other than
conclusory allegations in the complaint, Tieszen did not submit any evidence to
establish that LGCAI is essentially at home in South Dakota. See Dever, 380
F.3d at 1072-73 (holding that once a defendant contests personal jurisdiction,
the plaintiff’s prima facie showing must be tested by affidavits and exhibits,
and mere conclusory statements in the complaint will not suffice). LGCAI has
no office space or employees in South Dakota, does not own or lease real
property in South Dakota, is not registered to do business in South Dakota,
and does not have a registered agent for service of process in South Dakota.
Docket 16. On these facts, LGCAI cannot be said to be “at home” in South
Dakota. Thus, the court finds that LGCAI is not subject to general jurisdiction
in South Dakota.
B. 	LG Chem
LG Chem argues that there is no basis for this court to exercise general
jurisdiction over it. Docket 30 at 6-7. Tieszen contends that this court has an
adequate basis to assert general jurisdiction over LG Chem. Docket 38 at 4-8.
As with LGCAI, Tieszen concedes that LG Chem is not incorporated in South
Case 4:21-cv-04002-KES Document 47 Filed 09/10/21 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

8
Dakota nor is its principal place of business in South Dakota. Id. at 5. But
Tieszen argues that “LG Chem’s operations in South Dakota are apparent,
extensive, and exceptional” such that it is essentially at home in South Dakota.
Id. at 5-6; see also BNSF, 137 S.Ct. at 1558.
It is uncontested that LG Chem is a Korean company with its principal
place of business in Seoul, South Korea. Docket 31 ¶ 7. Thus, the question is
whether this is an “exceptional case” where LG Chem’s operations in South
Dakota are so extensive that they render LG Chem essentially at home in
South Dakota. BNSF, 137 S.Ct. at 1558. In support of its motion to dismiss, LG
Chem submitted an affidavit of Wonbae Baek, a former sales professional with
LG Chem. Docket 31 ¶ 5. Baek is now employed with LG Energy Solution, Ltd.
(LGES), which is a “spin-off of LG Chem, Ltd.’s battery division.” Id. ¶ 4. LGES
is now in possession of LG Chem’s business records concerning the design,
manufacture, distribution, and sale of 18650 lithium-ion battery cells. Id. ¶ 6.
Baek states that, as of November 30, 2020, LG Chem did not have an office in
South Dakota, was not registered to do business in South Dakota, did not have
a registered agent for service of process in South Dakota, did not own or lease
any real property in South Dakota, and did not have any employees in South
Dakota. Id. ¶¶ 8-11. Baek declares that he has no reason to believe that any of
that information has changed since November 30, 2020. Id. ¶ 13. Tieszen relies
on his complaint for the proposition that LG Chem is doing extensive business
in South Dakota. Docket 38 at 5. Tieszen did not submit any affidavits or
exhibits to controvert Baek’s affidavit.
Case 4:21-cv-04002-KES Document 47 Filed 09/10/21 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

9
Here, LG Chem’s operations are not so extensive that LG Chem is
rendered essentially at home in South Dakota. Accepting the allegations in the
complaint as true, LG Chem sells and distributes LG lithium-ion batteries in
South Dakota. Docket 1-1 ¶ 5; see also Docket 38 at 8. But Tieszen did not
present any evidence to controvert Baek’s affidavit that LG Chem does not have
an office in South Dakota, is not registered to do business in South Dakota,
does not have a registered agent for service of process in South Dakota, does
not own or lease any real property in South Dakota, and does not have any
employees in South Dakota. See Dever, 380 F.3d at 1072-73 (holding that once
a defendant contests personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s prima facie showing
must be tested by affidavits and exhibits, and mere conclusory statements in
the complaint will not suffice). Tieszen’s formulation of general jurisdiction in
this case calls for the “doing business” test for general jurisdiction specifically
rejected in Daimler. 571 U.S. at 139 n.20. This is not an “exceptional case”
where LG Chem is essentially at home in South Dakota. BNSF, 137 S.Ct. at
1558. Thus, this court finds that LG Chem is not subject to general jurisdiction
in South Dakota.
II. 	Specific Jurisdiction
A. 	LGCAI
LGCAI contends that the court lacks specific jurisdiction over it. Docket
15 at 5. Tieszen argues that this court has an adequate basis to exercise
specific jurisdiction over LGCAI because LGCAI has extensive operations in
South Dakota, and Tieszen’s claims arise out of or relate to those operations.
Case 4:21-cv-04002-KES Document 47 Filed 09/10/21 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

10
Docket 20 at 8-9. The court will address whether LGCAI is subject to specific
jurisdiction in South Dakota under the Eighth Circuit’s five-factor test.
The first factor for the court to consider is the nature and quality of
LGCAI’s contacts with South Dakota, and the second factor is the quantity of
those contacts. Kaliannan, 2 F.4th at 733. Here, Tieszen contends that
“LGCAI’s operations in South Dakota are extensive, and are focused primarily
on sales and distributions of petrochemical materials and products.” Docket 20
at 8. Tieszen alleges that those products are used in a variety of consumer
products bought and sold in South Dakota, including the type of LG lithium-
ion battery that injured Tieszen. Id. Tieszen relies on the allegations in his
complaint for the assertion that LGCAI’s products are used in LG lithium-ion
batteries. See id. LGCAI, in the affidavit of HyunSoo Kim, contends that its
contacts in South Dakota are limited to selling and distributing petrochemical
products “including ABS resin, Engineered Plastic (EP), Rubbers, Acrylate,
Super Absorbent Polymer (SAP), and Specialty Polymers.” Docket 16 ¶ 10.
“LGCAI’s sales in . . . South Dakota are exclusively limited to petrochemical
materials and products; it does not generate any other revenue in South
Dakota.” Id. ¶ 15. The first and second factors weigh in favor of Tieszen
because he has established that LGCAI has numerous contacts with South
Dakota, and those contacts “were not random, fortuitous, or attenuated, but
rather were central to an alleged scheme to purposely avail [itself] of the
privilege of conducting activities in [South Dakota].” Kaliannan, 2 F.4th at 734
(cleaned up) (quoting Whaley, 946 F.3d at 452).
Case 4:21-cv-04002-KES Document 47 Filed 09/10/21 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

11
The third factor to consider is the relation of the cause of action to
LGCAI’s contacts in South Dakota. Id. at 733. This factor is crucial for the
exercise of specific jurisdiction because “[Tieszen’s] claims . . . ‘must arise out
of or relate to [LGCAI’s] contacts’ with the forum.” Ford, 141 S.Ct. at 1025
(quoting Bristol-Meyers, 137 S.Ct. at 1780). Here, Tieszen contends that his
causes of action “are closely related or even directly linked to LGCAI’s contacts
with South Dakota.” Docket 20 at 9. Tieszen argues that LGCAI sells and
distributes petrochemicals that are used in LG lithium-ion 18650 batteries,
which is the same kind of battery that allegedly injured Tieszen. Id. Tieszen
points to his complaint and Kim’s affidavit to support his contentions. Id.
LGCAI denies Tieszen’s allegations. Docket 26 at 6. Kim’s affidavit states that
LGCAI primarily sells and distributes petrochemical materials and products,
and it “has never designed, manufactured, distributed, advertised, or sold any
lithium-ion cell for use by individual customers as standalone, removable
batteries.” Docket 16 ¶¶ 10-11. LGCAI also asserts that it has never authorized
any manufacturer, distributor, wholesaler, retailer, re-seller, or other entity—
including eBay or Vapah—to advertise, distribute, or sell LG 18650 lithium-ion
batteries. Id. ¶¶ 13-14.
As with his arguments for the exercise of general jurisdiction, Tieszen did
not submit any affidavits or exhibits to controvert LGCAI’s claims. Tieszen
cannot rely solely on the pleadings to establish specific jurisdiction; he must
specifically controvert LGCAI’s affidavit either with affidavits or exhibits of his
own. See Dever, 380 F.3d at 1072-73. After considering Kim’s affidavit, Tieszen
Case 4:21-cv-04002-KES Document 47 Filed 09/10/21 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

12
fails to establish that his claims arise out of or are related to LGCAI’s contacts
with South Dakota. Kim’s affidavit establishes that LGCAI sells and distributes
petrochemical materials and products in South Dakota but does not have any
involvement with LG lithium-ion batteries. Docket 16 ¶¶ 10-15. Tieszen’s
claims center around a malfunctioning LG lithium-ion 18650 battery that
caused his injuries. See Docket 1-1. Tieszen fails to connect LGCAI’s sale and
distribution of petrochemical materials and products to his claim that the
batteries malfunctioned. Thus, the third factor weighs in favor of LGCAI. This
court cannot exercise specific jurisdiction over LGCAI where Tieszen’s claims
do not “arise out of or relate to [LGCAI’s] contacts with the forum.” Ford, 141
S.Ct. at 1025 (cleaned up) (quoting Bristol-Meyers, 137 S.Ct. at 1780).
The fourth and fifth factors—the interest of the forum state in providing a
forum for its residents and convenience of the parties—weigh in favor of
Tieszen. Kaliannan, 2 F.4th at 733. Tieszen is a South Dakota resident and his
injuries occurred in South Dakota. Docket 1-1 ¶¶ 1, 12. South Dakota has an
interest in providing a forum for its residents who are injured in the state by
defective products. South Dakota is also the most convenient forum as Tieszen
lives in South Dakota, the injuries occurred in South Dakota, and potential
witnesses are likely located in South Dakota. Although LGCAI is not a resident
of South Dakota, it has a national presence and already conducts business in
South Dakota. While the fourth and fifth factors weigh in favor of Tieszen, they
are not dispositive. Kaliannan, 2 F.4th at 733.
Case 4:21-cv-04002-KES Document 47 Filed 09/10/21 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

13
Because Tieszen cannot carry his burden to prove that his claims arise
out of or relate to LGCAI’s contacts with South Dakota, this court cannot
exercise specific jurisdiction over LGCAI. Thus, LGCAI’s motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction is granted.
B. 	LG Chem
LG Chem contends that this court lacks specific jurisdiction over it.
Docket 30 at 7-10. Conversely, Tieszen argues that this court has an adequate
basis to exercise specific jurisdiction over LG Chem. Docket 38 at 8-11. As with
LGCAI, this court will determine whether it can exercise specific jurisdiction
over LG Chem under the Eighth Circuit’s five-factor test.
The first factor to consider is the nature and quality of LG Chem’s
contacts with South Dakota. Kaliannan, 2 F.4th at 733. Viewed in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party, Tieszen alleges that LG Chem conducts
business in South Dakota, including the sale and distribution of LG lithium-
ion batteries, including but not limited to the LG lithium-ion batteries
purchased by Tieszen that are the subject of this lawsuit. Dockets 1-1 ¶ 5, 38
at 9; see also Pangea, Inc. v. Flying Burrito LLC, 647 F.3d 741, 745 (8th Cir.
2011) (noting that the court must look at the facts in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party and resolve factual disputes in favor of the nonmoving
party). LG Chem does not explicitly deny that it does business in South Dakota
or that it sells lithium-ion batteries in South Dakota; rather, LG Chem states
that it “manufactured 18650 lithium-ion battery cells for use in specific
application by sophisticated companies.” Docket 31 ¶ 19. LG Chem contends
Case 4:21-cv-04002-KES Document 47 Filed 09/10/21 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

14
that it never sold or authorized anyone else to sell standalone 18650 lithium-
ion battery cells to individual customers. Id. ¶¶ 20-21. LG Chem focuses on
whether it purposefully availed itself of a market in South Dakota for
standalone 18650 lithium-ion batteries sold to individual consumers rather
than whether it purposefully availed itself generally of a market in South
Dakota. Docket 41 at 2-4. Viewing these facts in the light most favorable to
Tieszen, the court finds that LG Chem does business in South Dakota and sells
LG 18650 lithium-ion batteries in South Dakota. Even if the specific batteries
that are the subject of this litigation arrived in South Dakota via third-party
intermediaries, LG Chem has still exploited the market in South Dakota for
18650 lithium-ion batteries in general. Put another way, LG Chem has taken
“some act by which [it] purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting
activities within [South Dakota].” Ford, 141 S.Ct. at 1024-25 (first alteration in
original) (quoting Hanson, 357 U.S. at 253). Thus, the first factor weighs in
favor of Tieszen.
The second factor to consider is the quantity of LG Chem’s contacts.
Kaliannan, 2 F.4th at 733. At this stage in the litigation, the quantity of LG
Chem’s contacts with South Dakota is unclear because Tieszen has not had
the opportunity to engage in discovery. See Docket 38 at 9. LG Chem does not
mention the quantity of its contacts in South Dakota in its briefs or in Baek’s
affidavit. Thus, this factor does not weigh in favor of either party.
The third factor to consider is the relation of Tieszen’s causes of action to
LG Chem’s contacts in South Dakota. Kaliannan, 2 F.4th at 733. As previously
Case 4:21-cv-04002-KES Document 47 Filed 09/10/21 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

15
mentioned, this factor is crucial to a finding of specific jurisdiction. See Ford,
141 S.Ct. at 1025. LG Chem first argues that Tieszen’s claim does not arise out
of and is not related to LG Chem’s contacts with South Dakota because “[its]
contact with the forum State must involve the precise product at issue.” Docket
41 at 4. LG Chem notes that the precise product at issue in this case is an
industrial 18650 lithium-ion battery cell, not every model of lithium-ion cell
manufactured by LG Chem. Id. at 5. But as noted above, Tieszen alleges that:
(1) LG Chem sells and distributes 18650 lithium-ion cell batteries in South
Dakota, (2) Tieszen purchased such a battery online while in South Dakota,
and (3) Tieszen was injured by an 18650 lithium-ion cell battery in South
Dakota. Docket 1-1 ¶¶ 5, 11-16; Docket 42 at 5. Thus, Tieszen’s claim and LG
Chem’s contact with South Dakota both revolve around the 18650 lithium-ion
battery.
LG Chem next contends Teiszen’s claim does not arise out of and is not
related to LG Chem’s contacts with South Dakota because LG Chem does not
serve a market in South Dakota for standalone, removable consumer batteries.
Docket 41 at 5-6. Instead, LG Chem asserts that its “customers are not
consumers; they are sophisticated, industrial customers that purchase LG
Chem’s 18650 lithium-ion cells for use in specific applications, such as power
tools, that encase the cells in battery packs with protective circuitry.” Id. at 6.
LG Chem’s argument here is relevant to liability, not specific jurisdiction.
Tieszen has established a prima facie case here that LG Chem: (1) sells 18650
batteries in South Dakota; (2) Tieszen bought such a battery while in South
Case 4:21-cv-04002-KES Document 47 Filed 09/10/21 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

16
Dakota; (3) Tieszen is a South Dakota resident; and (4) Tieszen was injured,
allegedly by a malfunctioning 18650 battery, in South Dakota. Docket 1-1 ¶¶ 1,
5, 11-16. LG Chem served a market in South Dakota for the very product that
Tieszen alleges malfunctioned and injured him in South Dakota even if he was
not LG Chem’s intended consumer. Ford, 141 S.Ct. at 1028. “So there is a
strong ‘relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation’—the
‘essential foundation’ of specific jurisdiction.” Id. (quoting Helicopteros
Nacionales de Colum. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984)). Thus, the third factor
weighs in favor of Tieszen.
As was the case with LGCAI, the fourth and fifth factors—interest of the
forum state in providing a forum for its residents and convenience of the
parties—weigh in favor of Tieszen. Again, South Dakota has an interest in
providing a forum for its residents who are injured in South Dakota by
products that they purchased online while in South Dakota. Further, South
Dakota is the most convenient forum for the parties because Tieszen is a
resident of South Dakota, and LG Chem is a global entity that would not be
burdened by litigating in South Dakota. Tieszen, on the other hand, would be
heavily burdened by having to litigate elsewhere. Thus, the last two factors
weigh in favor of Tieszen.
The court finds that LG Chem has purposefully availed itself of the
privilege of conducting activities in South Dakota. Tieszen’s claims in this case
arise out of or relate to LG Chem’s contacts in South Dakota. This court finds
Case 4:21-cv-04002-KES Document 47 Filed 09/10/21 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

17
that it has specific jurisdiction over LG Chem. Thus, LG Chem’s motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied.
CONCLUSION
Tieszen has failed to meet the burden of proof necessary for this court to
exercise personal jurisdiction, general or specific, over LGCAI. But Tieszen has
met his burden of proof necessary for this court to exercise specific jurisdiction
over LG Chem.
Thus, it is ORDERED
1. Defendant LGCAI’s motion to dismiss (Docket 14) is granted.
2. Defendant LG Chem’s motion to dismiss (Docket 29) is denied.
DATED this 10th day of September, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:21-cv-04002-KES Document 47 Filed 09/10/21 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>