PITTSBURGH – For jurisdictional reasons, a federal judge has ordered the dismissal of a Western Pennsylvania couple’s litigation against a trio of Texas-based defendants, concerning property damages they alleged they incurred due to a defective do-it-yourself, off-grid solar kit.
Mark A. Bielstein and Rachelle R. Bielstein of Connellsville first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 19, 2022 versus Signature Solar Limited Liability Company and James Showalter of Sulphur Springs, Texas and John Showalter of Brashear, Texas.
“On or about July 16, 2020, the Bielsteins purchased a vacation home in Abaco, Bahamas. Following said purchase, the Bielsteins planned to renovate the vacation home, which included installing an off-grid solar battery system. The Bielsteins allege they became aware of the do-it-yourself, off-grid solar kits through defendants’ Facebook page. The Bielsteins aver that, from their residence in Pennsylvania, they purchased a DIY Solar Kit from defendants. On or about June 15, 2020, defendants allegedly invoiced the Bielsteins $16,113.85 for a DIY Solar Kit. On or about June 16, 2020, the Bielsteins paid said invoice by wire transfer from their bank in Somerset, Pennsylvania. Shortly thereafter, defendants allegedly shipped the purchased DIY Solar Kit to the Bielsteins at their place of business in Dunbar, Pennsylvania. The Bielsteins then delivered the purchased DIY Solar Kit to their vacation home after closing on the vacation home on or about July 16, 2020,” U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Marilyn J. Horan recounted.
“On or about Oct. 15, 2021, the Bielsteins allege the DIY Solar Kit malfunctioned, resulting in a catastrophic fire that destroyed the vacation home. The amended complaint alleges claims for negligence, strict products liability, breach of contract, and breach of warranties against Signature Solar Limited Liability Company, James Showalter and John Showalter. Defendants filed the within motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim against Signature Solar. The parties subsequently conducted jurisdictional discovery to address defendants’ motions.”
As Horan observed that the parties in this case do not contend that any of the defendants are “at home” in Pennsylvania, since each of the defendants are based in Texas, she found that “neither the parties nor the Court have a basis to confer general jurisdiction upon defendants” and would thus turn her analysis to the point of specific jurisdiction – the potential applicability which had become a point of contention between the parties, due to the online, interstate nature of the purchase.
“Here, the Bielsteins have not met their burden to establish that the defendants specifically directed a Facebook page or other webpage to Pennsylvania or that they knowingly interacted with Pennsylvania residents through these media. The Bielsteins have not demonstrated that a single Pennsylvania resident actually transacted with defendants through either a Facebook page or webpage. Indeed, the Bielsteins have neither averred nor produced evidence that they conducted any commercial activity through defendants’ Facebook webpage presence,” Horan said.
“Instead, the Bielsteins have produced an invoice, but that invoice contains no indications that it was sent to a Pennsylvania address. The Bielsteins have also averred that they paid said invoice by wire from their bank. No evidence or allegations indicate that this transaction occurred through Facebook or webpage internet contacts. Therefore, the Bielsteins have not demonstrated how defendants ‘purposefully availed’ themselves of the privilege of conducting business in Pennsylvania through Facebook internet commerce.”
As to non-internet contacts, the Bielsteins claimed that defendant Showalter spoke with Mr. Bielstein via telephone prior to purchasing the subject product; that Mr. Bielstein placed an order for the defendants’ product from their Pennsylvania-based home; the Bielsteins received an invoice for the DIY Solar Kit; Mr. Bielstein wired payment from his Pennsylvania-based bank and the DIY Solar Kit was shipped to the Bielsteins’ Pennsylvania address.
The Bielsteins also asserted that 22 other Pennsylvania residents received products from the defendants. But Horan found that Pennsylvania was “insignificant” to the litigation and that Pennsylvania “served as a mere pass-through point for the subject product before it was allegedly installed, malfunctioned, and caused harm in the Bahamas, all outside the Pennsylvania forum.”
“The Bielsteins clearly aver and attest that any of defendants’ alleged contacts, vis-à-vis the DIY Solar Kit, were ultimately directed toward the Bielsteins’s non-forum Bahamian vacation home. Indeed, the subject matter of the discussions with James and John Showalter all indicated that the final destination of the DIY Solar Kit would be in the Bahamas. The DIY Solar Kits could just as easily been shipped directly to the Bahamian vacation home. Moreover, the Bielsteins provide no evidence that the subject invoice was purposefully directed to Pennsylvania. The Bielsteins have also not indicated the manner in which the invoice was sent to them. Further, the payment from the Bielsteins’ Pennsylvania-based bank is of ‘negligible significance for purposes of determining whether [a defendant] had sufficient contacts in [the forum],” Horan stated.
“Finally, as regarding the 22 customers from Pennsylvania, the Bielsteins have neither defined the scope of those customer interactions, including the final destination of defendants’ products, nor have they provided any authority as to the significance of any volume of sales upon any specific personal jurisdiction analysis, to move these contacts beyond the realm of ‘random, isolated, or fortuitous.’ While the Court does not have an indication of the total volume of sales by defendants outside of Pennsylvania, a low volume, generally, does not meet a ‘minimum contacts’ threshold for specific personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania, where the harm occurred outside the forum. Again, the Bielsteins have not met their burden to provide a sufficient context for 22 customers, vis-à-vis overall sales volumes, where the alleged harm occurred in the Bahamas. Therefore, the Bielsteins have not met their burden to plead that defendants’ alleged contacts with Pennsylvania confer specific personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), will be granted.”
Horan added that before the Court enters a final order disposing of the motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs shall have until Feb. 12 to file a request that the order disposing of the motion to dismiss also provide for and identify a requested transfer to a court of competent jurisdiction – and that should no request be filed by said date, the Court will enter an order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissing this action.
The plaintiffs were represented by Joseph R. Lewis and Manning J. O’Connor II of Steptoe & Johnson, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants were represented by Clem C. Trischler and Frank H. Stoy of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-01786
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com