Dennis L. TURNEY, a married man, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HYUNDAI CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT USA Incorporated and Hyundai Heavy Industries Limited, Defendants-Appellees, and John Lim, an individual, Defendant.
No. 12-15288.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Filed May 30, 2014.
570 F. App‘x 659
Before: RIPPLE, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Submitted May 13, 2014.
Alison R. Christian, Esquire, Stephen M. Dichter, Esquire, Christian Dichter & Sluga, PC, Amy Marie Wilkins, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM***
Dennis L. Turney appeals from the district court‘s order dismissing a diversity
The district court properly dismissed Mr. Turney‘s ACRA claim on the ground of res judicata. Mr. Turney‘s previously litigated Title VII and ADEA claims involved the same parties and resulted in a final judgment on the merits. The ACRA claim arose from the same transactional nucleus of facts as these earlier claims. See Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987-88 (9th Cir.2005) (upholding res judicata ruling on the basis of a shared transactional nucleus of facts); see also Int‘l Union of Operating Eng‘rs-Emp‘rs Constr. Indus. Pension, Welfare & Training Trust Funds v. Karr, 994 F.2d 1426, 1430 (9th Cir.1993) (collecting cases employing the transactional nucleus of facts test).
The district court properly dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction Mr. Turney‘s claim against HHI for negligent hiring and supervision of Mr. Lim. See, e.g., Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414, 416 (9th Cir.1997) (defining the limits of personal jurisdiction under Arizona law). Mr. Lim was the Executive Vice President of HHI‘s Construction Equipment Division as well as the President of HCE. Mr. Turney alleged that Mr. Lim exacerbated discriminatory conditions at HCE. HHI is based in Korea. HHI‘s limited contacts with Arizona do not “approximate physical presence“; general jurisdiction therefore is lacking. Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat‘l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir.2000); see also Daimler AG v. Bauman, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 746, 760-61, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014). Specific jurisdiction also is lacking. HHI did not target Arizona by hiring Mr. Lim to head a subsidiary corporation that was based in Illinois. See J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2780, 2788, 180 L.Ed.2d 765 (2011) (noting that a foreign corporation subjects itself to personal jurisdiction only when it targets the forum state). HHI‘s hiring of Mr. Lim was not conduct that created an intentional, substantial connection with Arizona; specific jurisdiction therefore is lacking. See Walden v. Fiore, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1121-23, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014).
Finally, we note that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying further discovery on the matter of personal jurisdiction. We review the denial of further discovery for an abuse of discretion. Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1026 (9th Cir.2006). Discovery “should be granted where pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted ... or where a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary,” but we shall interfere in the district court‘s refusal to grant discovery only “upon the clearest showing that the
AFFIRMED.
Clifford JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; Jacob Lew, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-16775.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Filed May 30, 2014.
570 F. App‘x 661
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Submitted May 13, 2014.
Mark R. Conrad, Evan Harry Perlman, U.S. Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
*MEMORANDUM***
Clifford Johnson appeals pro se from the district court‘s judgment dismissing his
The district court properly concluded that Johnson failed to allege the essential elements of Article III standing, including personal injury that is fairly traceable to defendants’ allegedly false representations and likely to be redressed by an order granting Johnson a declaratory judgment. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (identifying three core requirements for standing under Article III of the United States Constitution); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474-75, 485-86, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982) (no standing where allegations constitute nothing more than the “generalized grievances” of one who observes government conduct with which he disagrees).
AFFIRMED.