McCard v. CIRCOR International, Inc.
2:20-cv-00147
E.D. Cal.Mar 31, 2021Background
- Plaintiff applied for a Utah-based Senior Principal Project Manager position with DeltaValve while living in California; Defendants conducted multiple interviews knowing he was a California resident.
- During recruitment, two individuals (Olson and Lah) allegedly promised full-time, permanent relocation to Utah, a director role, long-term employment (until retirement), and accommodation for the plaintiff’s wife’s medical travel to California.
- Plaintiff accepted, relocated to Utah with relocation benefits, and was terminated in May 2019 months after hire; he returned to and now resides in California.
- Plaintiff filed a state-court action alleging a single cause of action under California Labor Code § 970 (fraud in inducing relocation); the case was removed to federal court.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) (lack of personal jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a § 970 claim; Rule 9(b) pleading defects; statute of frauds raised).
- The district court granted dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction as to both defendants and for failure to state a § 970 claim, but granted leave to amend to cure pleading deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Traditional bases for personal jurisdiction (service, domicile, consent) | Service on DeltaValve’s agent and other contacts suffice; at least DeltaValve can be subject to jurisdiction | No service in forum for CIRCOR; neither defendant domiciled in California or consented; registration/agent designation alone does not consent to general jurisdiction | No traditional bases: plaintiff conceded for CIRCOR; DeltaValve’s registration/agent does not establish general jurisdiction; no traditional jurisdiction established |
| 2) Specific jurisdiction over CIRCOR (Calder/"effects" test) | CIRCOR made intentional pre‑employment misrepresentations expressly aimed at a California resident causing harm in California | CIRCOR’s acts occurred outside California, and plaintiff failed to allege intentional acts by CIRCOR (no link to the individuals who made statements) | Specific jurisdiction not shown: plaintiff failed to plead that Olson/Lah were CIRCOR agents (intentional-act element) and failed to plead jurisdictionally sufficient harm in California (Calder third prong) |
| 3) Specific jurisdiction over DeltaValve | Plaintiff did not press specific jurisdiction for DeltaValve | DeltaValve lacks contacts; plaintiff effectively concedes he cannot establish specific jurisdiction over DeltaValve | No specific jurisdiction over DeltaValve (plaintiff conceded the point) |
| 4) Sufficiency of § 970 claim under Rule 9(b) (fraud/particularity) | Alleged who said what (Olson and Lah), the misrepresentations, relocation and harms—suffices to plead § 970 | Complaint fails Rule 9(b): does not identify Olson/Lah as agents/employees authorized to bind defendants, fails to plead contemporaneous facts showing representations were false or made with scienter, and fails to allege harm with specificity | § 970 claim dismissed for failure to meet Rule 9(b) particularity and to plead falsity/scienter and concrete harms; leave to amend granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction requires corporation be "at home" in forum)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (general jurisdiction principles)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts framework)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 ("effects" test for purposeful direction)
- Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (application of Calder in Ninth Circuit)
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (California long-arm and due process analysis)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (forum contacts analysis)
- Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617 (three‑part specific jurisdiction test in Ninth Circuit)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards; legal conclusions not assumed true)
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616 (Rule 9(b) requires who, what, when, where, how)
- Rubke v. Capitol Bancorp Ltd., 551 F.3d 1156 (9(b) requires explanation why statement was false)
- Burnham v. Superior Court, 495 U.S. 604 (personal service principles discussed; distinguishable for corporations)
- Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (prima facie showing standard for jurisdictional facts)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (leave to amend standard)