YIH v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-26No. No. 20-17237

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that Yih failed to allege adequate facts to support jurisdiction over TSMC under either the general or specific jurisdiction standard.

Yih, representing himself, challenged a district court's dismissal of his employment lawsuit against Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) on jurisdictional grounds. The appellate court examined whether the lower court properly found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over TSMC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). The court determined that Yih's complaint did not contain sufficient factual allegations to establish either general jurisdiction (based on TSMC's continuous and systematic presence in California) or specific jurisdiction (based on connections between the claims and TSMC's California contacts).

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the district court had personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation defendant
Whether plaintiff alleged sufficient continuous and systematic contacts for general jurisdiction
Whether plaintiff alleged sufficient claim-related contacts for specific jurisdiction

Procedural posture

Yih appealed pro se from the district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

JihShyr Yih appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction his action alleging federal and state law employment claims against Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (“TSMC”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Intl, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Yihs action for lack of personal jurisdiction because Yih failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that TSMC had such continuous and systematic contacts with California to establish general personal jurisdiction, or sufficient claim-related contacts with California to provide the court with specific personal jurisdiction over TSMC. See Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1015, 1020-25 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing requirements for general and specific personal jurisdiction).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Yihs request that this court sanction TSMC and two of its employees, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.