Shawn Valandra v. Sur-Ron USA LLC, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted Chongqing Qiulong Technology Co.’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a products-liability action involving an electric motorcycle. The court held that the plaintiff had not established purposeful availment or that his claims arose out of or related to CQT’s Arizona contacts. The court also denied jurisdictional discovery without prejudice and dismissed CQT without prejudice.

Holdings

1. CQT did not purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Arizona. A passive website, dealer listings involving unaffiliated third parties, and generalized U.S. market contacts were insufficient on this record to establish the required Arizona contacts.
2. Valandra failed to establish that his claims arose out of or related to CQT's Arizona contacts because he did not show that the Arizona dealers were part of CQT's distribution network for the e-bike model involved in the accident.
3. The court could not consider post-accrual contacts to establish specific jurisdiction, and Valandra failed to show that the alleged Arizona dealer-map contacts existed when his products-liability cause of action accrued.
4. Valandra was not entitled to jurisdictional discovery because he failed to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction and his requests were based on speculation and unsupported hunches.
5. Amendment would be futile because Valandra did not identify additional facts that could establish personal jurisdiction over CQT; leave to amend was therefore unnecessary even though Valandra did not request it.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District of Arizona could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Chinese motorcycle manufacturer Chongqing Qiulong Technology Co., Ltd. based on its alleged website, dealer-map, distributor, and U.S. market contacts.
2. Whether Valandra's claims arose out of or related to CQT's Arizona-related contacts, including whether the contacts involved the model of motorcycle at issue and existed when the injury occurred.
3. Whether Valandra was entitled to jurisdictional discovery concerning CQT's Arizona activities, distributors, dealers, revenue, marketing, or alleged relationship with Fetchlight.
4. Whether Valandra should be granted leave to amend to cure the jurisdictional deficiency.

Disposition

dismissed