King et al v. Timber Ridge Trading & Manufacturing Company, No. 2:2019cv01617 - Document 37 (W.D. Wash. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER granting Defendant's 32 Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because the Court is dismissing this action, it need not consider Timber Ridge's alternative request for transfer of venue. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (PM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
they were physically present in Nevada. 905 F.3d at 601-02. The Court will not 17 abandon the purposeful direction analysis simply because Timber Ridge has “form[ed] a 18 contract with a Washington entity like Amazon.com,” Dkt. # 35 at 5, which is not itself a 19 tort. Hence, the purposeful direction analysis applies. The Court must now determine 20 whether Timber Ridge’s out-of-forum actions were directed at Washington. ii. 21 22 “Effects” Test In the purposeful direction inquiry, a court must evaluate whether a defendant 23 undertakes action that occurs outside the forum but is nonetheless directed toward the 24 forum, such as distribution and advertising. Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 25 1155-56 (9th Cir. 2006). In doing so, courts apply the Calder “effects” test, which 26 requires that a defendant (1) commit an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum 27 state, (3) that caused harm that the defendant knew was likely to be suffered in the forum 28 ORDER – 6 Case 2:19-cv-01617-RAJ Document 37 Filed 01/06/21 Page 7 of 9 1 state. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 803 (citing Calder, 465 U.S. at 789-90). (1) 2 3 Intentional Act The Court first considers whether Timber Ridge committed an “intentional act.” 4 “[A]n intentional act is an external manifestation of the actor’s intent to perform an 5 actual, physical act in the real world, not including any of its actual or intended results.” 6 Washington Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting Goods Inc., 704 F.3d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 2012). 7 Based on their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Timber Ridge “promised in its advertising 8 that the blade had ‘NO Kick-Back’ and was safe to use on an angle grinder.” Dkt. # 30 at 9 7. They further allege that Timber Ridge “knew of the especially dangerous nature of 10 using wood-cutting blades on an angle grinder and willfully misrepresented those 11 dangers.” Id. ¶ 17. They suggest that Timber Ridge made fraudulent statements, false 12 claims, and promises about the wood-cutting blade, sold them the blade, and failed to 13 provide adequate warnings. Id. at 12-14. If true, these would no doubt be “intentional 14 acts,” satisfying prong one of the effects test. 15 But these intentional acts belong not to Timber Ridge, but to Amazon. The 16 evidence reveals that Timber Ridge did not sell the blade that injured Mr. King; Amazon 17 did. Timber Ridge sells its products directly to retailers and wholesalers, like Amazon, 18 which then resell the products to end consumers. Id. ¶¶ 7, 10. Timber Ridge does not 19 sell its products directly to consumers, nor is it a “third-party” seller that fulfills orders 20 placed through Amazon.com. Id. ¶ 11. Instead, Amazon purchases products directly 21 from Timber Ridge, takes title and possession of the products, stores the products, and 22 sells and ships the products to end consumers. Id. 23 Despite that evidence, Plaintiffs still contend that Amazon’s sale of the wood- 24 cutting blade must be attributed to Timber Ridge. Plaintiffs do not deny that Mr. King 25 bought the blade on Amazon.com. Dkt. # 30 ¶ 12; Dkt. # 35 at 2. Yet they claim, 26 without evidence, that Mr. King bought the blade through “defendant’s Amazon.com 27 listing,” which contained “defendant’s promise” that the blade would have no kickback. 28 ORDER – 7 Case 2:19-cv-01617-RAJ Document 37 Filed 01/06/21 Page 8 of 9 1 Dkt. # 35 at 2. Plaintiffs thereby claim that Timber Ridge itself, not Amazon, 2 “misrepresented [the] extraordinary dangers associated with kickback.” Id. 3 Plaintiffs have given the Court no reason to believe that Amazon’s advertisement 4 and sale of the blade at issue must be attributed to Timber Ridge. Timber Ridge’s 5 evidence plainly contradicts Plaintiffs’ bare allegations that Timber Ridge, not Amazon, 6 sold and advertised the blade to Mr. King. 7 It is Timber Ridge’s, not Amazon’s, contacts with Washington that are significant. 8 The specific jurisdiction inquiry focuses on the “relationship among the defendant, the 9 forum, and the litigation.” Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014) (quoting Keeton v. 10 Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 775 (1984)). The relationship must arise out of 11 contacts that the “defendant himself” creates with the forum state. Id. (emphasis in 12 original) (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985)). “[A] 13 defendant’s relationship with a plaintiff or third party, standing alone, is an insufficient 14 basis for jurisdiction.” Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064, 1068 15 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Walden, 571 U.S. at 286). 16 What “intentional acts” should be ascribed to Timber Ridge, then, is unclear. The 17 only act that Plaintiffs present is the entering into a contract with Amazon, a third-party 18 Washington resident. Dkt. # 35 at 2. This “intentional act,” however, is unrelated to 19 Plaintiffs’ tort claims of the violation of express and implied warranties, failure to warn, 20 false advertising, and fraud. (2) 21 22 Expressly Aimed at the Forum State Even if the Court were to assume that Amazon’s actions could be attributed to 23 Timber Ridge for purposes of specific jurisdiction, Plaintiffs would not pass the second 24 prong of the “effects” test. Plaintiffs fail to show how the sale and advertisement of the 25 blade were expressly aimed at Washington. For example, Plaintiffs have not shown that 26 they, as residents of Washington were “individual[ly] target[ed]” in the forum state, 27 which would be relevant to a specific jurisdiction inquiry. Axiom, 874 F.3d at 1069-70. 28 ORDER – 8 Case 2:19-cv-01617-RAJ Document 37 Filed 01/06/21 Page 9 of 9 1 Indeed, Plaintiffs are not residents of the forum state at all. 2 At bottom, the significant facts are these: Plaintiffs are North Carolina residents, 3 one of whom was injured by a blade. Dkt. # 30 ¶¶ 5.b, 7, 14-15. The blade was bought 4 in North Carolina; the injury occurred in North Carolina. Id. ¶ 1. The blade was 5 manufactured in China but imported by Timber Ridge to Minnesota. Dkt. # 33 ¶¶ 5-6. 6 The only connection to this forum is that Amazon, a non-party Washington resident, 7 presumably bought the blade from Timber Ridge, took possession and title to it, and then 8 resold it to Mr. King. Id. ¶¶ 8, 10-12; Dkt. # 30 ¶ 12. Besides Timber Ridge’s business 9 relationship with a Washington resident, Timber Ridge’s only connection to this forum is 10 that nearly three years ago, on February 22, 2018, it shipped four saw blades to an 11 Amazon fulfillment center in Dupont, Washington. Dkt. # 33 ¶ 14. The blade that 12 injured Mr. King was not in that shipment, and that was Timber Ridge’s only shipment to 13 Washington from August 2015 to November 2019. Id. 14 These facts are too attenuated to find that Timber Ridge “expressly aimed” its 15 “intentional acts” at this forum. In sum, Plaintiffs fail the Calder “effects” test and thus 16 fail prong one of the specific jurisdiction analysis. V. CONCLUSION 17 18 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Timber Ridge’s motion to 19 dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dkt. # 32. Because the Court is dismissing this 20 action, it need not consider Timber Ridge’s alternative request for transfer of venue. 21 22 DATED this 6th day of January, 2021. 23 A 24 25 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 26 27 28 ORDER – 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
