Jones v. WalMart, Inc. et al

Filing 27

ORDER granting 12 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Midea is dismissed as a party from this case. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on March 6, 2025. (tmc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
ERIKA JONES
V.

PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 5:24-CV-5261

WALMART INC. f/k/a
WAL-MART STORES, INC.; and
MIDEA AMERICA CORPORATION

DEFENDANTS

OPINION AND ORDER
The Court takes up Defendant Midea America Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 12) for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).
The Motion was filed January 10, 2025. Plaintiff has not responded, so the Court decides
this matter on Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 2), Midea’s Motion, its Brief in Support (Doc. 13),
and its accompanying exhibits (Docs. 13-1 & 13-2).
This case arises out of an alleged injury that resulted from a defective “Instant Pot
Lux.” According to the Complaint, Midea “designed, manufactured, marketed, imported,
distributed and/or sold” this product, along with Instant Brands, Inc.—a company currently
in bankruptcy proceedings. Doc. 2, p. 1; see also id. at pp. 4, 5. Assuming Plaintiff here
has made a prima facie showing “by pleading sufficient facts to support a reasonable
inference that [Midea] can be subjected to jurisdiction,” that “showing must be tested, not
by the pleadings alone, but by the affidavits and exhibits supporting or opposing the
motion” to dismiss. K-V Pharm. Co. v. J. Uriach & CIA, S.A., 648 F.3d 588, 592 (8th Cir.
2011) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). Plaintiff bears the burden of

1

overcoming Midea’s Rule 12(b)(2) Motion. See Fastpath, Inc. v. Arbela Tech. Corp., 760
F.3d 816, 820 (8th Cir. 2014).
To determine the existence of personal jurisdiction, “[f]ederal courts apply the longarm statute of the forum state,” subject to the dictates of due process. Kaliannan v. Liang,
2 F.4th 727, 733 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting Whaley v. Esebag, 946 F.3d 447, 451 (8th Cir.
2020)). Arkansas's long-arm statute permits personal jurisdiction to the full extent
permitted by the Fourteenth Amendment, so the due process analysis is dispositive. Ark.
Code Ann. § 16-4-101; Yanmar Co., Ltd. v. Slater, 2012 Ark. 36, at *5 (2012). “[T]he due
process analysis depends on whether personal jurisdiction is alleged to be general or
specific.” Kendall Hunt Publ'g Co. v. Learning Tree Publ'g Corp., 74 F.4th 928, 930 (8th
Cir. 2023) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, Jones does not allege any facts
the Court could consider to assert general jurisdiction over Midea, so only specific
personal jurisdiction is at issue.
“In analyzing whether specific jurisdiction comports with due process, we must
decide whether the defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state and
whether the plaintiff[’s] claims ‘arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts.’”
Kaliannan, 2 F.4th at 733 (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S.
351, 359 (2021)). Minimum contacts with the forum state “are a prerequisite to the
exercise of personal jurisdiction.” Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 288 (2014) (citing
Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958)). To establish minimum contacts, “[t]he
defendant must have engaged in ‘some act by which the defendant purposefully avail[ed]
itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the
benefits and protections of its laws.’” K-V Pharm. Co., 648 F.3d at 592 (quoting Burger

2

King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985)). Where a defendant “has not purposefully
availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum State,” courts have
“no occasion to address the necessary connection between a defendant’s in-state activity
and the plaintiff’s claims.” Ford, 592 U.S. at 371 (cleaned up).
The Eighth Circuit has condensed the above rules into a five factor totality-of-thecircumstances test with the first three factors being of “primary importance”: “(1) the
nature and quality of [the 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) [the] convenience of the parties.”
Kaliannan, 2 F.4th at 733 (quoting Whaley, 946 F.3d at 452).
Midea has provided a declaration from its Manager of Market Quality that states
Midea “did not design,” “manufacture,” “engineer,” “develop,” “test[ ],” “produce,”
“assemble,” “package,” “import,” “distribute,” “advertise,” or “sell” any Instant Pot pressure
cookers, let alone the Instant Pot Lux model that Plaintiff alleges caused her injuries.
(Doc. 13-1, pp. 2–3). The declaration further states Midea “has never placed any Instant
Pot pressure cookers . . . in the stream of commerce or played any role in the process of
bringing any Instant Pot pressure cookers to consumers in the United States.” Id. at p. 3.
And, for good measure, the declaration additionally states that Midea has never
conducted business with Walmart, does not maintain bank accounts in Arkansas, does
not own, lease, rent, or control any Arkansas property, does not have any office or place
of business in Arkansas, and does not pay income or property taxes in Arkansas. Id. at p.
4. Plaintiff has not responded and, thus, provides no evidence to counter Midea’s.

3

Looking then to the only evidence provided, K-V Pharm. Co., 648 F.3d at 592, the
Court finds dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is appropriate because there simply
is no evidence that Midea has any contacts with Arkansas, let alone any contacts that
relate to Plaintiff’s claims. And for all intents and purposes, the affidavits and exhibits
supporting this Motion show Midea “is a stranger to Plaintiff’s claims.” (Doc. 13, p. 7).
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Midea’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED
and Midea is dismissed as a party from this case. The case proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims
against Walmart Inc.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 6th day of March, 2025.

______________________________
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4