Thurman v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al

Filing 82

ORDER denying #48 , #56 , and #72 Motions to Dismiss. Signed on 9/16/2022 by Magistrate Judge Willie J. Epps, Jr. (Minkler, Kaitlin)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
MARY J. THURMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 22-CV-04007-WJE

ORDER
Pending before the Court are Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 48, 56, 72) and suggestions in
support thereof (Docs. 49, 57, 73) filed by Defendants Honda Motor Co., Ltd., Honda R&D Co.,
Ltd., Honda of Canada Manufacturing, Inc., Honda Development & Manufacturing of America,
LLC (“Honda Defendants”), and TS Tech Americas, Inc. (“TS Tech”). Plaintiff Mary J. Thurman
has filed suggestions in opposition (Docs. 54, 67, 78), to which the Honda Defendants and TS
Tech have timely replied (Docs. 66, 68, 81). The issues are now ripe for consideration. 1 For the
reasons that follow, the Motions to Dismiss are denied.
I. Background
Ms. Thurman’s suit arises from a car accident in Missouri on June 26, 2019, where Ms.
Thurman was rear-ended in her 2008 Honda Civic. (Doc. 44, ¶¶ 31-33). After the driver’s seat
allegedly malfunctioned during the crash, Ms. Thurman sustained spinal cord damage, and is now
paraplegic. (Id., ¶¶ 34-37). In her Amended Complaint, she alleges strict liability for design defect
and negligence. (Id., ¶¶ 48-90).
Local Rule 7.0(b) states “[t]he Court may, but need not, order and consider oral argument.” The Court does not
believe a hearing on these matters is necessary.
1

Case 2:22-cv-04007-WJE Document 82 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 9

Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (“HMC”) is a Japanese corporation that designs, manufactures,
markets, and distributes Honda vehicles, including in Missouri, through its wholly owned divisions
and subsidiaries. (Id., ¶¶ 3, 13; Doc. 54, p. 8). Honda R&D Co., Ltd. (“Honda R&D”) is also a
Japanese corporation that designed and developed the 2008 Honda Civic for distribution and sale
in the U.S., including in Missouri. (Doc. 44, ¶¶ 4, 23). Honda of Canada Manufacturing, Inc.
(“Honda Canada”) is based in Canada and manufactured Ms. Thurman’s 2008 Honda Civic. (Doc.
72, ¶¶ 3, 5; Doc. 72-1, ¶ 21). Honda Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC (“Honda
D&M”) is an Ohio company that designed or developed the 2008 Honda Civic for distribution,
sale, and use in the United States, including the State of Missouri. (Doc. 72, ¶¶ 4, 6). TS Tech is
an Ohio corporation that designed, developed, manufactured, and/or sold the driver’s seat for the
2008 Honda Civic. (Doc. 44, ¶¶ 7, 26).
II. Standard of Review: Rule 12(b)(2)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), a party may move to dismiss claims for
lack of personal jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). “The plaintiff[] bear[s] the burden of
establishing a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, and [the Court] view[s] the evidence in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff [].” Whaley v. Esebag, 946 F.3d 447, 451 (8th Cir. 2020) (citing
Viasystems, Inc. v. EBM-Papst St. Georgen GmbH & Co., KG, 646 F.3d 589, 592 (8th Cir. 2011)).
“A prima facie showing ‘is accomplished by pleading sufficient facts to support a reasonable
inference that the defendant can be subjected to jurisdiction within the state.’” Bros. & Sisters in
Christ, LLC v. Zazzle, Inc., 42 F.4th 948, 951 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting K-V Pharm. Co. v. J. Uriach
& CIA, S.A., 648 F.3d 588, 591-92 (8th Cir. 2011)). First, “[f]ederal courts apply the long-arm
statute of the forum state to determine the existence of personal jurisdiction over the parties.”
Whaley, 946 F.3d at 451 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A); Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117,

Case 2:22-cv-04007-WJE Document 82 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 9

125 (2014)). Then the Court must determine whether exercising personal jurisdiction over the
defendant comports with the Due Process Clause. Bros. & Sisters in Christ, 42 F.4th at 951.
III. Analysis
A. Missouri’s long-arm statute provides jurisdiction over the Honda Defendants and
TS Tech.
The Honda Defendants and TS Tech argue that they have not done anything to trigger the
Missouri long-arm statute and that exercising jurisdiction in this case would violate due process.
(Doc. 49, pp. 6-7; Doc. 57, pp. 6-7; Doc. 73, pp. 6-7). Ms. Thurman argues that Missouri’s longarm statute applies because the Honda Defendants and TS Tech knew their products were going
to be used in Missouri and, if defectively designed, could cause injury or death to a Missouri
resident. (Doc. 54, pp. 8-10; Doc. 67, pp. 9-10; Doc. 78, p. 8-).
Missouri’s long arm-statute provides personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants
based on “[t]he commission of a tortious act within [the] state.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 506.500.1. “With
regard to the tortious act prong of the Missouri long-arm statute, it is clear that ‘extraterritorial acts
which produce actionable consequences in Missouri’ may satisfy the requirements of the statute.”
N.C.C. Motorsports, Inc. v. K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc., 975 F. Supp. 2d 993, 1001 (E.D. Mo. 2013)
(quoting Insituform Tech., Inc. v. Reynolds, Inc., 398 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1063 (E.D. Mo. 2005)).
“If a defendant can reasonably foresee [its] negligent actions having consequences felt in Missouri,
jurisdiction is authorized.” Myers v. Casino Queen, Inc., 689 F.3d 904, 911 (8th Cir. 2012). The
long-arm statute is “construed broadly, such that if a defendant commits one of the acts specified
in the long-arm statute, the statute will be interpreted ‘to provide for jurisdiction . . . to the full
extent permitted by the [D]ue [P]rocess [C]lause.’” Hand v. Beach Ent. KC, LCC, 425 F. Supp. 3d
1096, 1106 (W.D. Mo. 2019) (quoting Viasystems, 646 F.3d at 593). Missouri’s long-arm statute
provided jurisdiction over Suzuki Motor Corporation, a Japanese company, and Suzuki

Case 2:22-cv-04007-WJE Document 82 Filed 09/16/22 Page 3 of 9

Manufacturing of America Corporation, a company based in Georgia, after the plaintiff suffered
injuries in Missouri from an alleged product defect. C.C. v. Suzuki Mfg. of Am. Corp., No. 4:16CV-01271-ERW, 2017 WL 4617073, at *1-2 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 16, 2017). Missouri’s long-arm
statute also applied to a North Carolina tire valve manufacturer when it marketed, sold, and
delivered defective tire valves to consumers in Missouri via distributors, dealers, wholesalers, and
brokers, resulting in the plaintiff’s injuries in Missouri. Hartley v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., No.
20-06098-CV-SJ-GAF, 2020 WL 9218534, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 4, 2020).
Here, Ms. Thurman adequately alleges that the Honda Defendants and TS Tech negligently
designed, developed, and manufactured the driver’s seat outside of Missouri, which resulted in the
driver’s seat malfunctioning and injuring her in Missouri. (Doc. 44, ¶¶ 10-11, 23-26; Doc. 54, p.
9; Doc. 67, p. 10; Doc. 78, p. 8). It is reasonably foreseeable that HMC’s alleged negligence
designing, marketing, and distributing Honda vehicles would cause Ms. Thurman’s injuries
because it advertised and sold Honda Civics in Missouri, albeit through its divisions and
subsidiaries. (Doc. 54, p. 9); See Suzuki Mfg. of Am. Corp., 2017 WL 4617073, at *1-2. Likewise,
it is reasonably foreseeable that Honda R&D’s, Honda Canada’s, and Honda D&M’s alleged
negligence designing, developing, and manufacturing the 2008 Honda Civic would cause Ms.
Thurman’s injuries because Honda vehicles were sold and advertised in Missouri through HMC.
(Doc. 54, p. 9; Doc. 78, p. 8); See Suzuki Mfg. of Am. Corp., 2017 WL 4617073, at *1-2. It is also
reasonably foreseeable that TS Tech’s alleged negligence would have consequences in Missouri
because it designed, developed, manufactured, and/or sold a component part through distributors,
dealers, wholesalers, and brokers to Missourians. (Doc. 67, pp. 5, 9); See Hartley, 2020 WL
9218534, at *3. TS Tech lists Honda as one of its main customers and developed the driver’s seat
for the 2008 Honda Civic, recognizing the model would be sold globally. (Doc. 67-2, p. 4; Doc.

Case 2:22-cv-04007-WJE Document 82 Filed 09/16/22 Page 4 of 9

67-3, p. 2). Missouri’s long-arm statute therefore provides jurisdiction over the Honda Defendants
and TS Tech.
B. Jurisdiction over Honda Defendants and TS Tech is consistent with the Due
Process Clause.
The Honda Defendants and TS Tech argue that exercising personal jurisdiction over them
would violate the Due Process Clause because they do not have a substantial connection with
Missouri. (Doc. 49, pp. 9-16; Doc. 57, pp. 7-10; Doc. 73, pp. 9-17). Ms. Thurman argues that the
Court can exercise specific jurisdiction over the Honda Defendants and TS Tech because they have
a substantial connection with Missouri through commerce. (Doc. 54, pp. 10-19; Doc. 67, pp. 1019; Doc. 78, pp. 9-18). All parties agree that the Court cannot exercise general jurisdiction over
the Honda Defendants and TS Tech. (Doc. 49, pp. 7-9; Doc. 54, p. 10 n. 3; Doc. 57, pp. 5-6; Doc.
67, p. 10 n. 3; Doc. 73, pp. 7-9; Doc. 78, p. 9 n. 2).
“Even if personal jurisdiction over a defendant is authorized by the forum state’s long-arm
statute, jurisdiction can be asserted only if it comports with the strictures of the Due Process
Clause.” Viasystems, 646 F.3d at 594 (citing World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S.
286, 291 (1980)). “The touchstone of the due-process analysis remains whether the defendant has
sufficient ‘minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not
offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” Id. (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v.
Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). “This connection must be based on ‘some act by which
the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum
State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.’” Creative Calling Sols., Inc. v. LF
Beauty Ltd., 799 F.3d 975, 980 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S.
462, 474-75 (1985)). “The defendant’s contacts with the forum must thus be more than ‘random,
fortuitous, or attenuated,’ and must permit the defendant to ‘reasonably anticipate being haled into

Case 2:22-cv-04007-WJE Document 82 Filed 09/16/22 Page 5 of 9

court there.’” Id. (quoting Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 474-75). “In other words, ‘[t]o establish
specific jurisdiction the suit must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.’”
Alexander v. Suzuki Motor of Am., Inc., No. 4:17-CV-1942-JCH, 2018 WL 3819037, at *3 (E.D.
Mo. Aug. 10, 2018) (quoting Suzuki Mfg. of Am. Corp., 2017 WL 4617073, at *2).
In this circuit, the due process standard has been expressed as a consideration of
five factors: (1) the nature and quality of the contacts with the forum state; (2) the
quantity of those contacts; (3) the relationship of those contacts with the cause of
action; (4) Missouri’s interest in providing a forum for its residents; and (5) the
convenience or inconvenience to the parties.
Id. (quotation omitted). “Although [e]ach defendant’s contacts with the forum State must be
assessed individually, [n]aturally, the parties’ relationships with each other may be significant in
evaluating their ties to the forum.” Hand v. Beach Ent. KC, LCC, 425 F. Supp. 3d 1096, 1107
(W.D. Mo. 2019) (quotations and citations omitted).
The Supreme Court recently reasoned that when “a resident-plaintiff sues a global car
company, extensively serving the state market in a vehicle, for an in -state accident . . . [it is] an
illustration—even a paradigm example—of how specific jurisdiction works.” Ford Motor Co. v.
Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1028 (2021) (citing Daimler, 571 U.S. at 127, n.
5). In Ford, the defendants attempted to rely on Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of
California, San Francisco County, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), where the Court declined to exercise
personal jurisdiction over a national pharmaceutical company in California when nonresidents
were injured out-of-state by its prescription drug. 141 S. Ct. at 1030-31. The Court distinguished
Bristol-Myers because the “plaintiffs [in Ford were] residents of the forum States[; t]hey used the
allegedly defective products in the forum States[; a]nd they suffered injuries when those products
malfunctioned in the forum States.” Id. at 1031. There was a connection between the plaintiffs’
claims and Ford’s activities in the forum state. Id.

Case 2:22-cv-04007-WJE Document 82 Filed 09/16/22 Page 6 of 9

Specific jurisdiction exists over the HMC because they have sufficient minimum contacts
with Missouri. HMC actively seeks to serve a market in Missouri and its product, the 2008 Honda
Civic, allegedly malfunctioned in Missouri. (Doc. 54, pp. 14-16); see Ford Motor Co., 141 S. Ct.
at 1027. HMC purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting business in Missouri by
advertising and selling cars in Missouri through their various divisions and subsidiaries. 2 (Doc. 54,
pp. 14-16; Doc. 44, ¶ 14). HMC “systematically served a market in [Missouri] for the very
vehicle[] that the plaintiff[] allege[s] malfunctioned and injured [her],” illustrating a “strong
relationship between the defendant, forum, and the litigation.” Ford Motor Co., 141 S. Ct. at 1028
(quotation omitted). Without HMC’s contact with Missouri, Ms. Thurman might never have
bought a Honda Civic, and not brought these claims. See id. at 1029. Ms. Thurman is a resident of
Missouri, drove in Missouri, and was injured in Missouri. (Doc. 44, ¶¶ 1, 31-39). Missouri has a
strong interest in providing a forum for its residents when they are injured in their home state. See
Myers, 689 F.3d at 913. This is also a convenient forum because the evidence is in Missouri, where
the accident occurred. See N.C.C. Motorsports, 975 F. Supp. 2d at 1005. “The Eighth Circuit has
‘endorsed the idea that when a seller heads a distribution network it realizes the mu ch greater
economic benefit of multiple sales in distant forums, which in turn may satisfy the purposeful
availment test.’” Hartley, 2020 WL 9218534, at *5 (quoting Clune v. Alimak AB, 233 F.3d 538,
543 (8th Cir. 2000)). This Court will exercise specific jurisdiction over HMC.
Specific jurisdiction exists over Honda R&D, Honda Canada, and Honda D&M. Honda
R&D is a Japanese corporation, Honda Canada a Canadian company, and Honda D&M an Ohio
company. (Doc. 44, ¶¶ 4, 23; Doc. 72, ¶¶ 3-6). Yet, Honda R&D and Honda D&M allegedly

There are at least 15 Honda dealerships in Missouri, and Missouri is a part of a “Worldwide Sales Network” with
six different regions, including North America. (Doc. 54, p. 15; Doc. 54-1, pp. 6, 9). In the past 20 years, Honda has
sold more than 28 million vehicles in the U.S. (Doc. 54-1, p. 17).
2

Case 2:22-cv-04007-WJE Document 82 Filed 09/16/22 Page 7 of 9

designed and developed the defective 2008 Honda Civic for sale in the U.S., including in Missouri.
(Doc. 44, ¶¶ 4, 23; Doc. 72, ¶¶ 4, 6). Honda Canada allegedly manufactured Ms. Thurman’s
defective Honda Civic. (Doc. 72, ¶¶ 3, 5; Doc. 72-1, ¶ 21). It is illogical to analyze Honda R&D’s,
Honda Canada’s, and Honda D&M’s actions in a vacuum; their ties with HMC are significant
when evaluating their contact with Missouri. See Hand, 425 F. Supp. 3d at 1107. Honda R&D and
Honda D&M specifically designed and developed the Honda Civic for the U.S. market, and
through HMC and its divisions and subsidiaries, those vehicles were advertised and sold in
Missouri. (Doc. 54, pp. 14-15; Doc. 78, pp. 13-14). Similarly, Honda Canada manufactured Ms.
Thurman’s 2008 Honda Civic, and through HMC, that vehicle was advertised and sold in Missouri.
(Doc. 78, pp. 13-14). Without these entities’ coordinated and systematic contact with Missouri,
Ms. Thurman may have never bought a Honda Civic, and brought these claims, illustrating a strong
relationship between these entities, Missouri, and Ms. Thurman’s claims. See Ford Motor Co., 141
S. Ct. at 1028. Missouri also has a strong interest in providing a forum for its residents when they
are injured in Missouri. See Myers, 689 F.3d at 913. This is a convenient forum because the
accident occurred in Missouri. See N.C.C. Motorsports, 975 F. Supp. 2d at 1005. This Court will
exercise specific jurisdiction over Honda R&D, Honda Canada, and Honda D&M.
Specific jurisdiction similarly exists over TS Tech. A manufacturer’s “‘strategic choice of
distributors that could reach much of the country [is] evidence of [its] efforts to place its products
in the stream of commerce,’” and its only reasonable that it should be held accountable in the
forum where it reaps the benefits of this choice. Hartley, 2020 WL 9218534, at *5 (quoting Clune,
233 F.3d at 543). “‘Despite [TS Tech’s] claim that it had no actual knowledge that one of its
distributors sold products in [the forum state], such ignorance defie[s] reason and could aptly be
labeled as willful.’” Id. (quoting Clune, 233 F.3d at 543). TS Tech did more than simply set a

Case 2:22-cv-04007-WJE Document 82 Filed 09/16/22 Page 8 of 9

product adrift in the international stream of commerce. See Alexander, 2018 WL 3819037, at *5.
It manufactured the driver’s seat that allegedly injured Ms. Thurman exclusively for a United
States market and agreed to distribute it through Honda, knowing Honda vehicles would be sold
across the U.S., including in Missouri. (Doc. 67-2, p. 4; Doc. 67-3, p. 2). There is a strong
relationship, therefore, between TS Tech, Missouri, and Ms. Thurman’s injury. See Ford Motor
Co., 141 S. Ct. at 1028. Likewise, Missouri has a significant interest in providing a forum for its
residents and this forum is convenient because the evidence is in Missouri. See Myers, 689 F.3d at
913; N.C.C. Motorsports, 975 F. Supp. 2d at 1005. This Court will exercise specific jurisdiction
over TS Tech.
IV. Conclusion
It is hereby ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss are DENIED. (Docs. 48, 56, 72).
Dated this 16th day of September, 2022, at Jefferson City, Missouri.

Willie J. Epps, Jr.
Willie J. Epps, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:22-cv-04007-WJE Document 82 Filed 09/16/22 Page 9 of 9