Abraham Bernal, a maintenance technician at a California bottling plant, was injured when part of a malfunctioning “depalletizer” machine fell on him. The machine was made by Krones but incorporated a Fanuc robot. Fanuc Japan designed and manufactured the robot in Japan and distributed it in Europe through a European subsidiary. Krones then purchased the robot in Europe and brought it to California as part of the depalletizer acquired by Bernal’s employer.
Bernal sued Krones, Fanuc Japan, and Fanuc Japan’s wholly owned American subsidiary, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Michigan (Fanuc America). Fanuc Japan moved to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction. Bernal argued that Fanuc Japan was subject to jurisdiction by virtue of Fanuc America being its agent or alter ego, pointing to the companies’ shared branding and interlocking boards and to corporate regulations requiring Fanuc Japan’s approval of important financing, personnel, and property decisions. He also argued that Fanuc America had significant California contacts, including three service centers. The trial court denied Fanuc Japan’s motion, finding general jurisdiction on an agency theory.
Fanuc Japan retained Horvitz & Levy to petition for a writ of mandate. In a published opinion, the Court of Appeal granted the petition and concluded that Bernal had failed to establish either general or specific jurisdiction over Fanuc Japan. On general jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal recognized that Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117 had presumably overruled California cases adhering to a “representative services” variant of agency jurisdiction on which Bernal relied. It also reasoned that any imputation-based theories like agency or alter ego surviving Daimler could not establish general jurisdiction over Fanuc Japan because Fanuc America was incorporated and headquartered in other states and thus not “at home” in California. On specific jurisdiction, the court held that Bernal had not shown relatedness under Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (2021) 592 U.S. 351, as the robot in question had been manufactured and distributed abroad and Bernal did not identify any California sales, installation, or marketing of the specific robot model at issue.
Bernal v. FANUC E086688 
