Yih v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., 051920 FED2, 19-2218-cv
|Party Name:||JIHSHYR YIH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Attorney:||FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: JihShyr Yih, pro se, Yorktown Heights, New York. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Jessica Kastin and Rajeev Muttreja, Jones Day, New York, New York.|
|Judge Panel:||PRESENT: DENNY CHIN, SUSAN L. CARNEY, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||May 19, 2020|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 19th day of May, two thousand twenty.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Seibel, J.).
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: JihShyr Yih, pro se, Yorktown Heights, New York.
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Jessica Kastin and Rajeev Muttreja, Jones Day, New York, New York.
PRESENT: DENNY CHIN, SUSAN L. CARNEY, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-appellant JihShyr Yih, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the district court, entered June 25, 2019, dismissing his amended complaint (the "complaint") against defendant-appellee Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company ("TSMC") for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). TSMC is a Taiwanese company headquartered in Taiwan. The complaint alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the New York State Human Rights Law in connection with TSMC's decision not to hire Yih for a position in Taiwan. The district court held that TSMC's presence in New York was not sufficient to permit the court's exercise of general jurisdiction over it, and that TSMC's communications with Yih during the recruitment process were too attenuated to provide a basis for specific jurisdiction. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, "a district court has considerable procedural leeway. It may determine the motion on the basis of affidavits alone; or it may permit discovery in aid of the motion; or it may conduct an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the motion."
Dorchester Fin. Sec., Inc. v. Banco BRJ, S.A., 722 F.3d 81, 84 (2d Cir. 2013). Where, as here, the district court decides the motion based "on the pleadings and affidavits, and does not conduct a full-blown evidentiary hearing, we review the district court's resulting legal conclusions de novo," and a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction exists by "pleading in good faith, legally sufficient allegations of jurisdiction." Id. at 84-85 (internal quotation marks omitted). The pleadings and any supporting materials are construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 732 F.3d 161, 167 (2d Cir. 2013).
Personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant involves a two-step inquiry. Id. at 168. First, courts look to the law of the forum state to determine whether jurisdiction exists. Id. Where the forum state's jurisdictional requirements are satisfied, the court must then "consider whether the district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant comports with the due process protections established under the United States Constitution." Id. Here, the district court determined that there was no basis for jurisdiction under New York law and did not reach the due process question. We agree and affirm on this basis.
I. General Jurisdiction
Under Section 301 of New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules ("C.P.L.R."), a court sitting in New York has general personal jurisdiction over a defendant company that has "engaged in such a continuous and systematic course of doing business [in New York] that a finding of its presence in [New York] is warranted." Landoil Res. Corp. v. Alexander & Alexander Servs., Inc., 77 N.Y.2d 28, 33 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). "The court must be able to say from the facts...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP