DeLaCruz-Bancroft v. Field Nation, LLC
1:23-cv-00023
D.N.M.Jul 25, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Howard Delacruz-Bancroft filed suit in New Mexico state court against Field Nation, Jack in the Box (JITB), and NewBold Corporation/National Service Center (NSC), alleging breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentation, and violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (NMUPA).
- The dispute arose from Plaintiff’s permanent ban from Field Nation’s IT job platform after he allegedly performed work for a JITB franchisee outside the platform, purportedly at NSC’s request, which was reported to Field Nation by JITB and NSC employees.
- The suit was removed to federal court, and Defendants JITB and NSC filed motions to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; Plaintiff alleged the motions were untimely due to defects in service.
- The court ruled on a series of procedural issues, including whether Plaintiff’s responses filed in state court after removal were effective (they were not), and whether Plaintiff timely responded in federal court.
- The court ultimately determined that Plaintiff lacked privity of contract with JITB and NSC, his tort claims were time-barred by the statute of limitations, and he lacked standing under the NMUPA as he was not a consumer of their services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of JITB’s Motion | JITB defaulted by not timely answering after service | No proper service—30-day period never triggered | No default; motion was not untimely |
| Personal Jurisdiction (JITB) | Sufficient contacts via franchise relationship, conduct | Insufficient contacts for general/specific jurisdiction | No general jurisdiction; specific only for tort/NMUPA claims |
| Breach of Contract/Good Faith | JITB/NSC had obligations to Plaintiff | No contract exists with Plaintiff | No privity; claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Tort Claims/Statute of Limits | Suit timely under contract statute of limitations | Claims time-barred under 3-year rule for torts | Tort claims time-barred; dismissed with prejudice |
| NMUPA Standing | JITB/NSC made false statements harming Plaintiff | Plaintiff not a consumer—no standing | No standing; NMUPA claim dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (general and specific jurisdiction standards for corporations)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (intentional torts and the "effects test" for personal jurisdiction)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (modern specific jurisdiction causation test)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction over corporations at home)
- World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (minimum contacts requirement for personal jurisdiction)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleading under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for stating a claim)
- OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada, 149 F.3d 1086 (two-step jurisdictional analysis in federal courts)
- Behagen v. Amateur Basketball Ass’n of U.S.A., 744 F.2d 731 (plaintiff bears burden of establishing personal jurisdiction)