Dumitrescu v. Dyncorp International, LLC
257 F. Supp. 3d 13
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Dumitrescu, a Romanian citizen, worked for DynCorp (a U.S. government contractor) in Afghanistan from March 2006 until his termination on July 8, 2015; he alleges termination was retaliation for reporting a supervisor’s sexual harassment of a coworker.
- Plaintiff filed suit alleging breach of an implied contract obligating DynCorp to follow U.S. anti-discrimination law (Executive Order 11246); Title VII claim was dropped in the amended complaint.
- DynCorp moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and for failure to state a claim; it attached an express employment agreement to its motion.
- The court limited its analysis to jurisdiction and venue before reaching merits, noting it must resolve personal jurisdiction first.
- The court found no general jurisdiction (DynCorp’s principal place of business is McLean, Virginia) and no specific jurisdiction because the alleged wrongful acts occurred in Afghanistan and lacked a substantial connection to D.C.
- Because venue in D.C. was improper and personal jurisdiction was lacking, the court exercised its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Virginia (DynCorp’s headquarters).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction (general) | DynCorp regularly conducts business in D.C.; court may assert general jurisdiction | DynCorp’s principal place of business is McLean, VA; not "at home" in D.C. | No general jurisdiction — plaintiff did not show DynCorp is "at home" in D.C. |
| Personal jurisdiction (specific) | DynCorp’s government contracting (with D.C. agency) connects dispute to D.C.; contract-based contacts suffice | Plaintiff’s claims arose from conduct in Afghanistan; no substantial connection to D.C. | No specific jurisdiction — claim arose from events in Afghanistan without sufficient D.C. contacts |
| Venue under § 1391(b) | Venue proper under § 1391(b)(3) if defendant subject to jurisdiction in D.C. | Venue improper — defendant doesn’t reside in D.C. and events occurred in Afghanistan; no personal jurisdiction | Venue not proper in D.C.; § 1391(b)(3) unavailable because no personal jurisdiction |
| Transfer vs. dismissal | Plaintiff implicitly prefers D.C. forum | Defendant sought dismissal/transfer to Eastern District of Virginia | Court transfers case to Eastern District of Virginia in interest of justice rather than dismissing |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (federal courts must resolve personal jurisdiction before merits)
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (jurisdictional threshold limits merits adjudication)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (federal court must establish jurisdiction before addressing merits)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction limited to place where corporation is "at home")
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (distinguishing general and specific jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (contract contacts test for specific jurisdiction)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts due process standard)
- McGee v. Int’l Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220 (contract substantial connection to forum may support jurisdiction)
- Helmer v. Doletskaya, 393 F.3d 201 (D.C. Circuit on coextensive personal jurisdiction in diversity cases)
- Gowens v. DynCorp, 132 F. Supp. 2d 38 (DynCorp’s federal-contractor status did not alone create D.C. jurisdiction)
- Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (transfer preferred over dismissal for improper venue in interest of justice)
- Sinclair v. Kleindienst, 711 F.2d 291 (transfer favored where dismissal would terminate action)