Yih v. Taiwan Semiconductor Man ufacturing Company,Ltd

Opinion

1 5 JIHSHYR YIH, 6 Case No. 5:20-cv-04184-EJD Plaintiff, 7 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 8 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR 9 MANUFACTURING COMPANY,LTD, Re: Dkt. No. 28 10 Defendant.

11 Plaintiff requests leave to file a motion for reconsideration for this Court’s October 27, 12 2020 Order, where the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. 13 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (“Order”), Dkt. No. 27. He 14 argues this Court failed to consider “material factors or dispositive legal arguments which were 15 presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3). Plaintiff 16 grounds his argument in this Court’s “failure” to consider material facts establishing that the Court 17 has specific jurisdiction over Defendant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. 18 (“TSMC”). Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration (“Mot.”) at 4-7., Dkt. No. 28. 19 First, Plaintiff contends that the Court failed to consider that Plaintiff would have a “job 20 location” in California, among multiple job locations, while working for TSMC. Id. at 4. Plaintiff 21 labeled this his “job location theory” for specific jurisdiction. Id. According to Plaintiff, the fact 22 that he would have a “job location” in California meant that the Court had specific jurisdiction 23 over TSMC. Second, Plaintiff claims that the Court failed to consider that TSMC experienced 24 “production” and “sale issues” after Plaintiff was denied the position of TSMC’s Chief 25 Information Officer, which affected the ability of California individuals and companies to access 26 TSMC’s website for online information and transactions. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff suggests that these 27 Case No.: 5:20-cv-04184-EJD 1 are material facts establishing that the Court has specific jurisdiction over TSMC. 2 These “material facts” are irrelevant to the specific jurisdiction analysis. As the Court 3 explained in its Order, minimum contacts analysis focuses upon “contacts that the defendant 4 himself creates with the forum State,” and that “an injury is jurisdictionally relevant only insofar 5 as it shows that the defendant has formed a contact with the forum State.” Walden v. Fiore, 571 6 U.S. 277, 284 (2014) (emphasis in original). That California may or may not have been one of 7 Plaintiff’s job locations if hired by TSMC, does not factor into the specific jurisdiction analysis 8 because it does not speak to TSMC’s express efforts to create contacts with California.1 9 Additionally, Plaintiff’s contention that TSMC not hiring him somehow affected California 10 individuals and companies’ ability to access TSMC’s website is irrelevant when determining 11 whether TSMC purposefully directed its activities toward California or when determining whether 12 Plaintiff’s discrimination claims arose out of or relate to TSMC’s forum related activities.2 These 13 facts still do not connect TSMC’s forum activities to the discriminatory harm alleged in the case 14 because the claims would have arisen regardless of the alleged effect not hiring Plaintiff had on 15 California individuals and companies’ ability to access TSMC’s website. 16 Accordingly, because the Court did not fail to consider material facts or dispositive legal 17 arguments, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 18 19 20 21

22 1 As the Court explained in its Order because Plaintiff’s claims of discrimination are “more akin to tort claims,” the Court employed the purposeful direction framework. See e.g., Bradley v. T- 23 Mobile US, Inc., No. 17-cv-07232-BLF, 2020 WL 1233924, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2020) 2 A three prong test is used to determine whether a defendant has the minimum contacts” 24 necessary for specific jurisdiction: (1) the defendant must either “purposefully direct his activities” toward the forum or “purposefully avail himself of the privileges of conducting activities in the 25 forum”; (2) “the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities”; and (3) “the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, 26 i.e. it must be reasonable.” Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2017). “The plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the first two prongs of the test.” 27 Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F. 3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004). Case No.: 5:20-cv-04184-EJD 2 Dated: December 10, 2020 3 EDWARD J. DAVILA 4 United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

13 14 © 15 16

= 17 6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Case No.: 5:20-cv-04184-EJD 28 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION