Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that dismissal for a Japanese company that manufactures motorcycle helmets was improper where the company inserted the helmets into Nevada’s stream of commerce and demonstrated an intent to serve the state.

Kambra Cooper brought a lawsuit in Nevada federal district court against Shoei Co., Ltd., the Japanese corporation that manufactured the helmet Cooper’s husband was wearing when he died in a motorcycle collision. The plaintiff alleged that the helmet was defective and contributed to her husband’s death. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that it did not conduct business in the state of Nevada.

Denying the motion, the district court noted that for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction, either general or specific, a nonresident defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the jurisdiction so that maintaining suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Specific jurisdiction, the court said, depends on activity that occurred in the forum state. Citing case law, the court added that a defendant must have performed some act or transaction with the forum by which it purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business there, the plaintiff’s claims must arise out of or result from forum-related activities, and exercising jurisdiction must be reasonable. Moreover, the court said, a plaintiff must point to additional conduct indicating a defendant had intended to serve the market in the forum state.

Here, the court found that the defendant inserts its helmets into the stream of commerce in Nevada by manufacturing them in Japan and delivering them to distributors who sell to United States retailers. Additionally, the defendant’s website includes a dealer locator, which lists various Nevada dealers. Thus, the court held that the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that the defendant had inserted its helmets into the stream of commerce, intended to serve the forum state, and purposefully availed itself of doing business there. Citing the plaintiff’s assertion that her late husband had used the defendant’s dealer locator to purchase his helmet, the court also concluded that exercising jurisdiction over the defendant was not unreasonable.

Citation: Cooper v. Shoei Safety Helmet Corp., 2020 WL 1469622 (D. Nev. Mar. 26, 2020).

Plaintiff counsel: A.J. Sharp and Nadine Morton, both of Las Vegas.