Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04664/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04664-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MYRA DICKERT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SANYO ENERGY (U.S.A.) 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-04664-EMC 

ORDER RE JURISDICTIONAL 

DISCOVERY

Plaintiffs Myra Dickert and Howard Dickert (“Plaintiffs”) bring suit against Sanyo Energy 

(U.S.A) Corporation (“Sanyo Energy”), Sanyo North America Corporation (“Sanyo NA”), and 

Panasonic Corporation of North America (“Panasonic,” and collectively “Defendants”) in 

connection with allegedly defective solar panels manufactured and marketed by Sanyo Energy. 

Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint arguing, inter alia, that the Court lacks 

personal jurisdiction over Panasonic. See Docket No. 38 at 25. At the March 8, 2019 hearing on 

the motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs sought leave to take limited jurisdictional discovery.

“A district court is vested with broad discretion to permit or deny [jurisdictional] 

discovery.” Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003). “Such 

discovery ‘should ordinarily be granted where pertinent facts bearing on the question of 

jurisdiction are controverted or where a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary.’” Id.

(quoting Butcher’s Union Local No. 498 v. SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 540 (9th Cir. 1986)). In 

this district, courts have held that “a plaintiff need not make out a prima facie case of personal 

jurisdiction before it can obtain jurisdictional discovery.” Calix Networks, Inc. v. Wi–Lan, Inc., 

No. 09–cv–06038–CRB (DMR), 2010 WL 3515759, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2010). “Rather, a 

Case 3:18-cv-04664-EMC Document 45 Filed 03/12/19 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

plaintiff must present a ‘colorable basis’ for jurisdiction, or ‘some evidence’ constituting a lesser 

showing than a prima facie case.” Id. (citations omitted).

Plaintiffs here have presented a colorable basis for the Court to assert jurisdiction over 

Panasonic for their claims relating to Defendants’ alleged breach of the solar panels’ warranty and 

misrepresentations about the panels and the warranty. For instance, on July 18, 2018 Plaintiffs

sent a letter titled “Notice of Violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Breach of Warranty” 

to an address in Cupertino, California, where they claim it was received by Panasonic. See Docket 

No. 37, Exh. D. They allege that “the planning of warranty, related marketing strategies, and the 

implementation of warranty policies were coordinated at, emanated from and were developed” in 

California. Docket No. 37 ¶ 359. They further point to Defendants’ statement at the hearing that 

Plaintiffs should have sent their warranty claim to the San Diego, California address listed on the 

solar panels’ Limited Warranty. See Docket No. 37, Exh. A § 5. In response, Defendants point 

out that, according to the first amended complaint, Panasonic is a Delaware corporation with its 

principal place of business in New Jersey. Docket No. 37 ¶ 12. Defendants’ counsel also called 

the Court’s attention to an e-mail exchange submitted by Plaintiffs which suggests Panasonic 

processes warranty claims in Oregon, not California. Docket No. 37, Exh. C. 

There are disputed facts that may be pertinent to the personal jurisdiction analysis. To 

successfully assert specific jurisdiction over Panasonic, Plaintiffs “must establish that [Panasonic]

either purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in California, or 

purposefully directed its activities toward California.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 

374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004). “A showing that a defendant purposefully availed himself of 

the privilege of doing business in a forum state typically consists of evidence of the defendant’s 

actions in the forum, such as executing or performing a contract there.” Id. (citing Hanson v. 

Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958)); see Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995)

(holding that in a breach of contract action, “the ‘purposeful availment’ requirement is satisfied if 

the defendant has taken deliberate action within the forum state or if he has created continuing 

obligations to forum residents”) (citation omitted).

Based on the parties’ conflicting representations about where Panasonic carries out its 

Case 3:18-cv-04664-EMC Document 45 Filed 03/12/19 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

warranty obligations, “pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted,” and 

jurisdictional discovery is warranted. Laub, 342 F.3d at 1093. Plaintiffs may seek discovery for 

the limited purposes of determining (1) who at Panasonic makes decisions regarding warranty 

claims for solar panels manufactured by Sanyo Energy, including Plaintiffs’ warranty claims, and 

where those decisions are made; and (2) who received Plaintiffs’ July 18, 2018 letter and whether 

they had the authority to process warranty claims. The latter may inform the question of personal 

jurisdiction as well as questions regarding the adequacy and effect of pre-suit notice.

The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer regarding the scope of jurisdictional 

discovery and a deadline for discovery. They should submit a stipulation and proposed order 

detailing the same no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. If the parties cannot 

reach a stipulated agreement, they shall submit the dispute through a joint discovery letter brief 

filed no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order in compliance with the Court’s 

standing order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-04664-EMC Document 45 Filed 03/12/19 Page 3 of 3