B. Otis Felder (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) prevailed on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in the Second Circuit Court, Wailuku, Hawai‘i, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a Canadian manufacturer of solar panels and lithium batteries. Otis successfully argued that the court must evaluate the client’s contacts with Hawai‘i as of September 2023, when the transaction at issue occurred, rather than based on events that followed. At that time, the client sold the batteries FOB from its facility in British Columbia to the co-defendant’s freight forwarder in California. Under those circumstances, Otis argued, it would not have been reasonably foreseeable for the client to be hauled into court in Hawai‘i.

The co-defendant’s counsel vigorously opposed the motion, arguing that the client should have anticipated being subject to suit in Hawai‘i because it had sold thousands of battery units that the co-defendant later distributed in the state and because the client’s website identified the co-defendant as a distribution partner. Otis countered that this attenuated, post-sale distributor relationship was insufficient to establish purposeful availment, particularly as of September 2023. Otis further argued that the co-defendant’s opposition was aimed at delaying relief for Maui homeowners whose property was damaged in a February 2024 fire and who are set for trial in November 2026. He emphasized that the plaintiffs themselves had no interaction with the client and could recover from the remaining defendants ‒ including the co-defendant ‒ who are actively engaged in the litigation upon proving liability. The court adopted Wilson Elser’s finding that it would not have been reasonably foreseeable for our client to be brought into litigation under these circumstances and requested that the firm prepare an order dismissing the client from the case.