Bailey v. DynCorp International
3:11-cv-00714
| D. Or. | Jan 11, 2012Background
- Plaintiff Bailey, Oregon resident, claimed retaliation and breach of contract arising from her termination while working in Afghanistan.
- Bailey alleges DynCorp International and its affiliate DynCorp FZ jointly employed her; DynCorp International denies employment relationship.
- Bailey’s job training occurred in Virginia; recruitment and offer processes involved DynCorp International personnel and entities.
- Bailey’s employment contract was with DynCorp FZ (Dubai-based), under DynCorp International’s customer contract with the State Department CIVPOL program.
- Injury occurred in Afghanistan; termination communication came via email from DynCorp International, with purported involvement of DynCorp FZ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over DynCorp International | Bailey contends DynCorp International purposefully directed activities toward Oregon. | DynCorp International had no Oregon contacts; termination occurred outside Oregon; acts were unilateral. | DynCorp International lacked specific and general jurisdiction; dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 F.2d 105 (9th Cir. 1980) (9th Cir. 1980) (minimum contacts for jurisdiction must be purposeful and reasonable)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Supreme Court 1945) (established minimum contacts standard)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (Supreme Court 1984) (effects test for purposeful direction in tort cases)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (purposeful direction and effects test in forum state)
- Gordy v. Daily News, L.P., 95 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 1996) (illustrates purposeful direction/impact considerations)
- Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) (injury nexus and forum-directed activity considerations)
- Cate v. Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc., No. 06-cv-200-SM, 2007 WL 2437946 (D.N.H. 2007) (courts can be unsatisfied with sparse connections to forum in employment terminations)
- Sarkis v. Lajcak, No. C-08-01911 RMW, 2009 WL 3367069 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (employment termination in foreign locale; forum not properly exercised)
- Jobe v. ATR Mktg, Inc., 87 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 1996) (distinguishes injury location from forum-derived jurisdiction)
- Potts v. Cameron Offshore Boats, Inc., 401 F. Supp. 2d 733 (S.D. Tex. 2005) (recruitment actions in forum-related jurisdiction analysis)
- Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006) (forum state considerations in internet-related activities)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Neaves, 912 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir. 1990) (effects and forum contacts considerations)
- Bixby v. KBR, Inc., 2010 WL 1499455 (D. Or. 2010) (employment-related jurisdiction analysis in Oregon context (WL cited))