89 F. Supp. 3d 462
E.D.N.Y2015Background
- Plaintiff Loredana Ingénito worked for Riri USA (New York subsidiary) from 2004 until termination on January 13, 2010; she alleges pregnancy discrimination by being fired after informing her supervisor she was pregnant.
- Riri SA is a Swiss parent corporation and sole shareholder of Riri USA; Riri Group is an informal trade name that defendants say is not a legal entity.
- Plaintiff amended to add Riri SA and Riri Group as defendants; jurisdictional discovery was conducted and Movants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and (6).
- Key factual allegations: Riri USA acted as Riri SA’s sales/distribution representative in the U.S.; Riri SA maintained control/oversight (e.g., CEO Cerni directed layoffs) and had involvement in the decision to terminate Plaintiff.
- Plaintiff filed an EEOC charge and received a right-to-sue letter; defendants argued lack of personal jurisdiction over Riri SA and that Title VII exhaustion and NYSHRL statute-of-limitations defects barred claims.
- Court disposition: dismissed claims as to Riri Group (not a legal entity) and denied dismissal as to Riri SA (personal jurisdiction and failure-to-exhaust/time-bar arguments rejected at this stage).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Riri Group | Howell acted as Riri Group’s agent so New York jurisdiction exists | Riri Group is not a legal entity (trade name); no contacts | Dismissed as to Riri Group (no entity) |
| Personal jurisdiction over Riri SA (specific jurisdiction under CPLR §302(a)(1)) | Riri SA transacted business in NY through Riri USA, exercised control, and directed Plaintiff’s termination | Riri SA lacks sufficient NY contacts; Riri USA is independent subsidiary | Jurisdiction permitted: plaintiff made prima facie showing Riri SA transacted business through Riri USA and the claim arose from those acts |
| General jurisdiction over Riri SA | Plaintiff argued presence via subsidiary and contacts | Riri SA not at home in NY; no continuous/systematic contacts | Court declined to find general jurisdiction; focused on specific jurisdiction and due process analysis |
| Failure to exhaust EEOC / naming defendant & NYSHRL statute of limitations | Riri SA shares identity of interest with Riri USA so EEOC charge suffices; relation-back/tolling render NYSHRL timely | Plaintiff failed to name Riri SA in EEOC; NYSHRL claim time-barred and amendment not timely | Court found identity-of-interest exception could apply (EEOC exhaustion satisfied) and that statute-of-limitations/tolling/relation-back could not be resolved against Plaintiff on the record; dismissal denied as to Riri SA |
Key Cases Cited
- Troma Entm’t, Inc. v. Centennial Pictures Inc., 729 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2013) (prima facie standard for jurisdictional showing after jurisdictional challenge)
- Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. Am. Buddha, 609 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2010) (standards for pleading jurisdictional facts pre-discovery)
- Dorchester Fin. Sec., Inc. v. Banco BRJ, S.A., 722 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2013) (considering affidavits and discovery in Rule 12(b)(2) analyses)
- Ball v. Metallurgie Hoboken-Overpelt, S.A., 902 F.2d 194 (2d Cir. 1990) (sliding-scale prima facie burden for jurisdictional allegations)
- Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 732 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2013) (framework for applying New York long-arm statute and need to analyze forum contacts)
- Chloé v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, 616 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2010) (due process factors and reasonableness in exercising jurisdiction)
- Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007) (New York long-arm statute analysis and general principles on transacting business)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)