Hill v. Gergun Transportation Inc.
2:24-cv-01751
E.D. Cal.Sep 16, 2024Background
- Plaintiff, a California citizen and truck driver, sued Gergun Transportation, Inc. (“Gergun”) for claims under California law: failure to pay final wages, failure to reimburse business expenses, retaliation, and wrongful termination.
- Gergun, previously incorporated in California, was re-domiciled in South Carolina before the events in question, but continued to maintain an office and operations in California.
- Plaintiff applied for, was hired, and began work for Gergun in West Sacramento, California, and her route began there but ended in South Carolina, where she was terminated.
- Plaintiff alleges Gergun failed to pay final wages upon termination, did not reimburse business expenses, and fired her after complaints about unsafe working conditions.
- Defendant removed the action to federal court and then moved to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, failure to state a claim, and extraterritorial application of California law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Gergun in California | Specific contacts in CA due to hiring, operations, and acts | Not enough contacts after becoming a SC corporation | Jurisdiction exists; Gergun purposefully availed itself |
| Venue proper in E.D. Cal. | Events and harm occurred in CA | Gergun resides in SC and not in the district | Venue is proper; substantial events occurred in the district |
| Payment of final wages/labor code § 201 applies | Plaintiff based in CA, performed work starting in CA | Statute shouldn’t apply extraterritorially to out-of-state events | CA law applies; claim may proceed |
| Reimbursement of business expenses, § 2802 | Plaintiff incurred expenses as part of CA-based work | No extraterritorial application; not for costs incurred out-of-state | CA law applies; claim may proceed |
| Retaliation under Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5 | Retaliation connected to CA-based employment | No connection: termination decision and acts occurred outside CA | Dismissed; statute does not apply extraterritorially |
| Wrongful termination in violation of public policy | Claim predicated on federal regulation affecting public policy | No extraterritorial application; termination decision made in SC | Dismissed; claim arises under CA law, not federal law |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (2021) (minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (specific v. general jurisdiction principles)
- Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int'l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2017) (framework for federal due process in jurisdiction)
- Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §410.10 (California long-arm statute coextensive with due process)
- Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 732 (2020) (application of California wage laws to interstate workers)
- Bernstein v. Virgin America, Inc., 3 F.4th 1127 (9th Cir. 2021) (extraterritorial application of California labor law)
- Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 51 Cal.4th 1191 (2011) (presumption against extraterritorial application of CA statutes)
- Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (plaintiff bears burden to establish personal jurisdiction)