Turney v. Hyundai Construction Equipment USA Inc., 577 F. App'x 659

Dennis L. Turney sued HCE and its parent HHI, asserting an Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA) discrimination claim and a common-law negligent hiring/supervision claim against HHI after prior federal suits.
Turney previously litigated Title VII and ADEA claims against the same parties that resulted in a final judgment on the merits.
The ACRA claim arose from the same transactional nucleus of facts as the earlier federal claims.
Turney alleged that John Lim (HHI executive and president of HCE) exacerbated discriminatory conditions at HCE; HHI is headquartered in Korea and has limited contacts with Arizona.
The district court dismissed the ACRA claim as barred by res judicata and dismissed the negligence claim for lack of personal jurisdiction over HHI; the court also denied additional jurisdictional discovery.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed both dismissals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Turney's ACRA claim is barred by res judicata	The ACRA claim is distinct and not precluded by earlier Title VII/ADEA judgments	Prior Title VII/ADEA litigation between same parties produced final judgment on same transactional nucleus of facts	ACRA claim barred by res judicata; dismissal affirmed
Whether the district court had general personal jurisdiction over HHI	HHI’s relationship via Lim and corporate structure subjects it to jurisdiction in Arizona	HHI’s contacts with Arizona are too limited to approximate physical presence	No general jurisdiction over HHI; dismissal affirmed
Whether the district court had specific personal jurisdiction over HHI (and whether Lim’s hiring targeted Arizona)	Hiring Lim (who led HCE) created sufficient connection to Arizona to permit specific jurisdiction	HHI did not target Arizona by hiring Lim for a subsidiary based elsewhere; hiring did not create an intentional, substantial connection	No specific jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed
Whether denial of additional jurisdictional discovery was an abuse of discretion	More discovery would show facts supporting jurisdiction	District court reasonably denied further discovery; Turney failed to show substantial prejudice	Denial of discovery not an abuse of discretion

Tritz v. U.S. Postal Serv., 721 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for res judicata rulings)
King v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 632 F.3d 570 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for personal jurisdiction rulings)
Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2005) (transactional nucleus of facts test for claim preclusion)
Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs v. Karr, 994 F.2d 1426 (9th Cir. 1993) (res judicata/transactional test authority)
Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997) (limits on personal jurisdiction under Arizona law)
Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussion of general jurisdiction and physical presence approximation)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (Supreme Court) (restrictive view of general jurisdiction)
J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (Supreme Court) (foreign corporation subjects itself to jurisdiction only when it targets the forum)
Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (Supreme Court) (requirement that defendant create a forum connection through its own activities for specific jurisdiction)
Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2006) (review standard for denial of jurisdictional discovery)
Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1977) (standard on when jurisdictional discovery should be allowed)