In 2020, a social-media trend nicknamed the “Kia Boyz” popularized a method for stealing certain Hyundai and Kia vehicles in seconds, by exploiting the fact that many of those vehicles lacked an engine immobilizer, a standard anti-theft device. Thefts of Hyundai and Kia vehicles surged nationwide. Lawsuits filed across the country were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the Central District of California, organized into three tracks: subrogation claims, consumer claims, and claims by governmental entities. This appeal concerns the subrogation track, brought by roughly 200 insurance companies that paid claims to policyholders whose Hyundai or Kia vehicles, model years 2011 through 2022, were stolen or damaged.
The insurers sued not only the U.S. distributors, Hyundai Motor America and Kia America, but also the Korean parent manufacturers, Hyundai Motor Company (HMC) and Kia Corporation (KC). They alleged the Korean entities designed standard-model vehicles without engine immobilizers specifically for the U.S. market — reserving that anti-theft feature for higher trim packages — even though the same models sold with immobilizers standard in Canada and other markets. Plaintiffs also alleged the Korean entities shipped thousands of vehicles through California’s ports: more than 70 percent of HMC’s U.S.-bound shipments and about 77 percent of KC’s, according to bills of lading plaintiffs submitted.
The Korean entities moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, submitting declarations from their American subsidiaries’ sales executives stating that vehicles are sold “FOB Origin” in Korea — meaning title and risk of loss pass to the American subsidiaries at the point of shipment — and that the subsidiaries, not the Korean entities, handle importation, port logistics, and distribution once the vehicles reach the United States. Plaintiffs did not submit any competing declarations of their own, relying instead on their complaint’s allegations. The district court (Judge James V. Selna) dismissed the claims against the Korean entities, concluding the shipping records did not show the Korean entities intentionally aimed their conduct at California and that, in any event, plaintiffs had not shown their claims arose from California-related conduct. The court also denied plaintiffs leave to amend and denied their request for jurisdictional discovery, then entered a Rule 54(b) final judgment dismissing the Korean entities from the subrogation track.
In the published case of In re: Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation: Insurance Subrogation Appeal, No. 24-5219 (9th Cir. Sept. 2026). The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
The panel first held the district court properly disregarded plaintiffs’ complaint allegations that the Korean entities controlled U.S. distribution, since those allegations were directly contradicted by the subsidiaries’ declarations and plaintiffs offered no competing evidence of their own. Turning to the merits, the panel applied the Ninth Circuit’s three-part test for specific personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants, tracing its due-process roots to International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945): the defendant must have purposefully directed activities at, or availed itself of, the forum; the claims must arise out of or relate to those forum contacts; and the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.
On the first element, the panel held the Korean entities’ contacts were not the kind of passive “stream of commerce” placement that the Supreme Court held insufficient in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987). Even though the Korean entities did not themselves sell vehicles in California, they were listed as shippers of record on thousands of shipments routed through California ports, and nothing in the record suggested a distributor independently chose that routing. Combined with evidence the Korean entities designed their vehicles without immobilizers specifically for the U.S. market, the panel found this sufficient “purposeful availment and direction,” rejecting the Korean entities’ argument that only California-specific (as opposed to nationwide) targeting could support jurisdiction. The panel relied heavily on its own 2025 en banc decision in Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 135 F.4th 739 (9th Cir. 2025), which held that “differential targeting” of a particular state is not required, and on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 592 U.S. 351 (2021), which held that serving a nationwide market does not immunize a company from jurisdiction in any particular state where its products cause injury.
On the second element, the panel held plaintiffs’ claims arose from the Korean entities’ California contacts because their injuries were caused by vehicles the Korean entities shipped through California’s ports. The panel distinguished its earlier decision in Yamashita v. LG Chem, Ltd., 62 F.4th 496 (9th Cir. 2023), where a plaintiff failed to allege that the specific battery that injured him had been shipped through the forum port; here, given that the large majority of the Korean entities’ U.S. shipments passed through California, it was reasonable to infer many of the vehicles at issue did too.
The panel left the third element — whether exercising jurisdiction would ultimately be “reasonable,” a multi-factor test neither party had briefed on appeal — for the district court to resolve on remand, and did not reach whether the court abused its discretion in denying jurisdictional discovery.