Tesla Suit Over Crash in Japan Should Stay in U.S., Family Says

California, not Japan, is the proper location for a wrongful death lawsuit that blames Tesla Inc.'s Autopilot driver-assist system for an accident near Tokyo, the wife and daughter of a victim told the Ninth Circuit.

A federal district court improperly dismissed the case on convenience grounds when it shifted the burden of proof to Yoshihiro Umeda’s family, according to their opening brief to the appeals court, filed Thursday.

The lower court also incorrectly weighed the availability of witnesses and other factors in its decision, they say.

The lower court’s dismissal of the case, over the first alleged Autopilot-related death involving a pedestrian, was conditioned on Tesla agreeing to be sued in Japan.

Autopilot is a focus in other litigation and in investigations as well. A lawsuit pending in Florida alleges that Autopilot’s failure to detect an SUV led to the death of a 22-year-old. And MetLife Auto & Home recently sought and received subpoena power to get vehicle data from Tesla to investigate a New Jersey man’s assertions that he totaled his 2019 Tesla X after his Autopilot system failed, according to Bloomberg Law’s search of court filings.

Another crash, this one on May 5 in southern California, is still under investigation, and whether Autopilot was engaged is still unknown. And Tesla has contested the idea that Autopilot was a factor in a fatal crash and fire in Texas in April.

The Umeda complaint alleges that a Tesla Model X with Autopilot on suddenly accelerated when the car in front of it switched lanes on an expressway near Tokyo.

The Tesla crashed into a van, motorcycles, and pedestrians stopped on the side of the expressway, striking and killing Umeda, according to the complaint.

Umeda’s wife and adult daughter, individually and on behalf of his estate, sued Tesla in the Northern District of California, which is the location of its headquarters and principal place of business.

The district court said that third parties in Japan can’t be compelled to produce documents or be interviewed or deposed because Japan isn’t a party to the Hague Convention, and Japanese law doesn’t allow for Japanese citizens to appear at a deposition telephonically or by remote video for use in U.S. litigation.

But Tesla had the burden to show that a lawsuit in California would result in “vexation and oppression” disproportionate to the Umedas’ convenience, the pair says in the brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The district court “downplayed Tesla’s burden and never applied the ‘oppression and vexation’ standard,” the Umedas say.

The court also didn’t give enough deference to their choice of forum because “private interest” factors, such as witness availability, merely tipped in favor of dismissal under its analysis, they say.

YK Law LLP represents the Umedas. Bowman & Brooke LLP represents Tesla.

The case is Umeda v. Tesla, Inc., 9th Cir., No. 21-15286, brief 5/27/21.