[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-11814

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

BRYAN DURHAM, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LG CHEM, LTD., 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-02737-SDG

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-11814 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 1 of 12
2 Opinion of the Court 21-11814

____________________

No. 21-11817

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

DEVIN TODD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LG CHEM, LTD., 

Defendant-Appellee,

LG CHEM AMERICA, INC.,

Defendant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-02738-SDG

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-11814 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 2 of 12
21-11814 Opinion of the Court 3

____________________

No. 21-11821

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

DOUG NEWELL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LG CHEM, LTD., 

Defendant-Appellee,

LG CHEMAMERICA, INC. 

Defendant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-02631-SDG

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-11814 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 3 of 12
4 Opinion of the Court 21-11814

____________________

No. 21-11826

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

RICHARD JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LG CHEM, LTD., 

Defendant-Appellee,

LG CHEM AMERICA, INC.,

Defendant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-03230-SDG

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-11814 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 4 of 12
21-11814 Opinion of the Court 5

____________________

No. 21-11828

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

DAKOTA NORTON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LG CHEM, LTD., 

Defendant-Appellee,

LG CHEM AMERICA, INC.,

Defendant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-02263-SDG

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-11814 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 5 of 12
6 Opinion of the Court 21-11814

Before LUCK, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The sole issue in these consolidated appeals is whether the

district court lacked personal jurisdiction over LG Chem, a Korean 

company that all concede would not be subject to personal jurisdiction in any Georgia state court. Because no federal statute established personal jurisdiction over LG Chem, we affirm the district 

court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaints.

I. 

The plaintiffs are residents of Missouri, Ohio, Arizona, and 

Pennsylvania that purchased LG lithium-ion 18650 batteries from 

electronic-cigarette retailers in those states. Each plaintiff was injured when the battery exploded. They separately brought actions 

against LG Chem, a Korean company, and LG Chem America, Inc., 

its wholly owned, Atlanta-based subsidiary, in the Northern District of Georgia. Each plaintiff sought damages for violations of

Georgia products-liability law. 

LG Chem moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims due to lack 

of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs later voluntarily dismissed 

LG Chem America as a party for reasons not relevant here. Then, 

recognizing that the district court had recently granted LG Chem’s 

motion to dismiss in two identical cases, the plaintiffs conceded 

that personal jurisdiction over LG Chem was lacking in Georgia. In 

fact, the plaintiffs suggested that the district court should transfer 

each case to the plaintiffs’ home district. But if the district court was 

USCA11 Case: 21-11814 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 6 of 12
21-11814 Opinion of the Court 7

inclined to reconsider its jurisdictional analysis, the plaintiffs offered a new theory—they suggested that the district court’s jurisdiction over foreign parties was broader than that of a Georgia 

court. Instead of focusing on LG Chem’s contacts with Georgia, 

the plaintiffs asked the district court to assert personal jurisdiction 

over LG Chem based on its contacts with the United States as a 

whole. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to transfer 

and dismissed their claims, concluding that personal jurisdiction 

was lacking under Georgia’s long-arm statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91.

These appeals followed. 

II. 

We review de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss a 

complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Waite v. All Acquisition 

Corp., 901 F.3d 1307, 1312 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing Carmouche v. 

Tamborlee Mgmt., Inc., 789 F.3d 1201, 1203 (11th Cir. 2015)).

When a party makes only a passing reference or fails to offer argument on an issue, the issue is abandoned. Lapaix v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

605 F.3d 1138, 1145 (11th Cir. 2010); Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). 

III. 

As an initial matter, the plaintiffs have abandoned any challenge to the district court’s denial of their motion to transfer. Although the plaintiffs mention the motion in the background sections of their opening brief, they offer no argument relevant to that 

USCA11 Case: 21-11814 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 7 of 12
8 Opinion of the Court 21-11814

issue. For that reason, we do not address whether the district court 

properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion to transfer. 

On the personal jurisdiction issue, the plaintiffs contend that

the district court improperly focused on LG Chem’s contacts with 

Georgia, rather than its contacts with the United States as a whole. 

In their view, personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation not 

subject to jurisdiction in any state nonetheless exists in any federal 

court so long as the action arises out of the corporation’s “systematic and continuous business in the United States.” This is so, the 

plaintiffs argue, because a federal court’s power over parties is limited by the Fifth rather than the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due 

Process guarantee. 

Personal jurisdiction starts with service of process. See U.S. 

S.E.C. v. Carrillo, 115 F.3d 1540, 1543 (11th Cir. 1997). Under Rule 

4(k)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, service of process 

“establishes personal jurisdiction” over a party if, for example, the 

person is subject to the long-arm statute of the state in which the 

court sits or if service is authorized by federal statute. FED. R. CIV.

P. 4(k)(1)(A), (C). Under Rule 4(k)(2), service of process can establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant that “is not subject to 

jurisdiction in any state[],” but only “[f]or a claim that arises under 

federal law.” Id. at 4(k)(2). Service under this latter provision “does 

not establish personal jurisdiction if the only claims are those arising under state law[,] . . . even though there might be diversity or 

alienage subject matter jurisdiction as to such claims.” Advisory 

Committee Notes to the 1993 Amendments to Rule 4. 

USCA11 Case: 21-11814 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 8 of 12
21-11814 Opinion of the Court 9

Even when a party is properly served, a court’s exercise of 

personal jurisdiction must also comport with due process. The fundamental constitutional question is whether the party has sufficient 

contacts with the forum “such that the 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) (quotation omitted). When personal jurisdiction is premised on the forum state’s long-arm statute, the relevant due process concerns 

emanate from the Fourteenth Amendment, and courts consider 

the party’s contacts with the forum state. See Diamond Crystal 

Brands, Inc. v. Food Movers Int’l, Inc., 593 F.3d 1249, 1257–58 (11th 

Cir. 2010). But where personal jurisdiction is established under federal law, the Fifth Amendment contains the relevant Due Process 

Clause, and we “generally . . . deem[] the applicable forum for minimum contacts purposes to be the United States.” Carrillo, 115 F.3d 

at 1543; see also CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, 

FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1068.1 (4th ed. 2021) (noting 

that “courts faced with a case in which a federal statute authorized 

nationwide or worldwide service generally gravitated towards the 

. . . national contacts standard”). 

Here, the district court correctly held that LG Chem’s lack 

of contacts with Georgia meant that it lacked personal jurisdiction.

LG Chem was served under Rule 4(k)(1)(A), as “being subject to 

the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where 

the district court is located.” And “[f]or constitutional purposes, a 

federal court proceeding under Rule 4(k)(1)(A) must assess the 

USCA11 Case: 21-11814 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 9 of 12
10 Opinion of the Court 21-11814

defendant’s contacts with the forum state (rather than with the 

United States as a whole).” WRIGHT & MILLER, § 1069. 

Neither Rule 4(k)(1)(C) nor Rule 4(k)(2) applies. LG Chem 

was not served pursuant to a federal statute that authorizes nationwide service of process. See Carrillo, 115 F.3d at 1543 (“Where process is served pursuant to a federal statute authorizing nationwide 

or worldwide service, . . . the relevant forum [is] the entire United 

States . . . .”); FED.R.CIV. P. 4(k)(1)(C). Instead, it was served under

the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents, 20 U.S.T. 361 (Nov. 15, 1965). See FED. R.

CIV. P. 4(f)(1). But the Convention does not authorize nationwide

service—it is merely a mechanism for serving parties outside the 

United States in partnering countries. See generally Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 698 (1988). Accordingly, the Hague Convention does not give a district court personal jurisdiction over a party notwithstanding its lack of contacts

with the forum state. See DeJames v. Magnificence Carriers, Inc., 

654 F.2d 280, 288 (3d Cir. 1981); see also Sloss Indus. Corp. v. 

Eurisol, 488 F.3d 922, 925, 934 (11th Cir. 2007) (weighing the foreign defendant’s contacts with the forum state where service was 

accomplished via the Hague Convention).

Moreover, the plaintiffs are not asserting claims against LG 

Chem that arise under federal law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(k)(2). The 

district court had diversity jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims, 

all of which arose under Georgia law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Thus, 

USCA11 Case: 21-11814 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 10 of 12
21-11814 Opinion of the Court 11

even assuming LG Chem cannot be sued in any other state, Rule 

4(k)(2) would not apply.

The plaintiffs suggest that “hints” in decisions of the Supreme Court point toward a different conclusion. They note that 

twice the Supreme Court has chosen not to answer whether a federal court “could, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the 

Fifth Amendment,” exercise personal jurisdiction “over alien defendants based on the aggregate of national contacts, rather than 

on the contacts between the defendant and the State in which the 

federal court sits.” Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 

Solano Cnty., 480 U.S. 102, 113 n.* (1987) (plurality opinion); Omni 

Cap. Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 102 n.5 (1987). 

And they point out that the Supreme Court has “le[ft] open the 

question whether the Fifth Amendment imposes the same restrictions on the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a federal court” 

as the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on state courts. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., San Francisco Cnty., 582 U.S. 

__,137 S. Ct. 1773, 1784 (2017).

These unresolved questions are irrelevant to this appeal. It 

is true that the Supreme Court has been careful not to conflate the 

due process requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. But, here, there is no question that the relevant amendment 

is the Fourteenth and the relevant forum is Georgia. Thus, we have 

no occasion to consider whether an analysis under the Fifth 

Amendment would lead to a different result.

USCA11 Case: 21-11814 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 11 of 12
12 Opinion of the Court 21-11814

IV. 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 21-11814 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 12 of 12