Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics, LLC
2:24-cv-00953
| E.D. Cal. | Nov 25, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Teniah Tercero filed a wage-and-hour class action in California state court against C&S Logistics of Sacramento/Tracy LLC, Sacramento Logistics LLC, and C&S Wholesale Grocers, LLC, alleging violations of the California Labor Code and Business & Professions Code.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity, CAFA, and federal question jurisdiction.
- C&S Logistics moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), arguing it did not have sufficient contacts with California.
- Tercero argued for specific jurisdiction based on C&S Logistics’ alleged role as alter ego of Tracy Logistics (a subsidiary) or as agent for C&S Wholesale (its parent).
- The court considered whether Tercero sufficiently established facts for alter ego or agency-based personal jurisdiction and also reviewed her request for jurisdictional discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specific personal jurisdiction (alter ego) | C&S Logistics is the alter ego of Tracy Logistics; their business identities are merged. | Mere common address, counsel, and joint recruiting do not meet alter ego test or show pervasive control. | No prima facie showing; alter ego theory rejected |
| Specific personal jurisdiction (agency) | C&S Logistics is an agent for C&S Wholesale, thus its contacts count. | Reverse-agency theory has no legal support post-Daimler; no control shown. | No prima facie showing; agency theory rejected |
| Jurisdictional discovery | Discovery should be allowed if the record is insufficient to determine jurisdiction. | Plaintiff offered no evidence or plan; request is a fishing expedition. | Discovery denied; no colorable basis shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (general jurisdiction standard)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (specific jurisdiction must arise from defendant’s forum contacts)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (restricts scope of agency-based jurisdiction)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (three-part test for specific jurisdiction)