Appin v. Mergermarket Ltd.

Background

Ricky L. Appin worked as a content editor for Mergermarket from 2003 until Mergermarket terminated her employment in 2022. Appin alleged discrimination based on gender, age, and medical history under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act and violations of California’s Family Rights Act. Her operative complaint asserted claims for age discrimination, disability discrimination, Family Rights Act interference, Family Rights Act retaliation, gender discrimination, Fair Employment and Housing Act retaliation, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and breach of contract.

Mergermarket argued that it terminated Appin as part of a years-long cost-cutting strategy that replaced all of Mergermarket’s U.S. content editors with lower-paid content editors in India. The opinion states that the defendants moved for summary judgment, Ion Trading Inc. moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and Appin moved for leave to file another amended complaint adding Ion Investment Corporation S.a.r.l. as a defendant.

Ion Trading’s Motion to Dismiss

The court granted Ion Trading’s second motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court had previously granted Ion Trading’s first motion to dismiss on the same ground and had warned that Appin would need new factual allegations supporting jurisdiction if she named Ion Trading again. The court found that Appin had not provided such allegations.

The court concluded that it lacked general jurisdiction because Ion Trading was incorporated in Illinois and headquartered in New York, while Appin’s cited contacts with California—including employing at least one California resident and maintaining a website accessible to California consumers—did not make this an exceptional case for jurisdiction outside the company’s incorporation and principal business locations.

The court also found no specific jurisdiction. Appin identified Ion Trading executive Kunal Gullapalli’s alleged involvement in the decision to end her employment, but she did not allege a relationship between Gullapalli and California or identify relevant activities that Ion Trading undertook in California. The case proceeded against the remaining defendants.

Motion for Leave to Amend

The court denied Appin’s motion to add Ion Investment Corporation S.a.r.l. as an additional defendant. Because the deadline in the scheduling order had passed, Appin had to show good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.

Appin said she learned of Ion Investment Corporation S.a.r.l.’s possible involvement on October 2, 2024, and filed her motion nearly one month later, after extended discovery had closed. The court found that this delay did not demonstrate diligence and that Appin had not shown why she could not have identified the company earlier. The court also found that adding a defendant after discovery and dispositive-motion deadlines had passed would cause undue prejudice by requiring additional discovery and new dispositive motions.

Summary Judgment

The court denied Mergermarket’s motion for summary judgment in part and granted it in part. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The court denied summary judgment on Appin’s FEHA discrimination claims. Appin presented evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder could find discriminatory motive, including a human-resources comment about her recurring health issues and the timing of her termination shortly before scheduled surgery. The court also found factual disputes about references to Appin as a “legacy asset,” the retention of younger employees doing similar work, alleged extensive misgendering, and whether the termination was connected to her gender identity or instead to cost-cutting.

The court denied summary judgment on Appin’s CFRA and FEHA retaliation claims. The parties disputed whether Mergermarket knew about Appin’s planned surgery and leave, whether decisions about her bonus were connected to her corporate value or her communications after the acquisition, and the actual reason for her termination. The court concluded that these fact-bound issues could not be resolved at summary judgment.

The court also denied summary judgment on Appin’s CFRA interference claim. Appin alleged that Mergermarket interfered with her right to medical leave by terminating her twelve days before scheduled surgery. The parties disputed whether Appin had provided sufficient notice of her need for leave. The court found at least one material factual dispute on that issue.

The court denied summary judgment on Appin’s wrongful-termination claim because it treated that claim as based on her discrimination and retaliation claims, and Mergermarket offered no separate argument supporting summary judgment on it.

The court granted summary judgment on Appin’s breach-of-contract claim. Appin based that claim on a 2018 statement by Mergermarket’s chief executive that the company would “take care of” her when she retired. The court held that this vague statement was not an enforceable contract under California law.

The court did not grant summary judgment against Appin’s request for punitive damages. It found that, at this stage, it could not conclude as a matter of law that no reasonable jury could find clear and convincing evidence of malice or oppression. The court stated that the issue should await a full factual record at trial.

The court also denied Appin’s request for additional discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). The court found that she had not submitted the required affidavit or declaration explaining specific reasons she could not present facts needed to oppose summary judgment, and that her broad assertion that defendants had blocked her ability to pursue the case was insufficient.

Disposition

The court denied in part and granted in part Mergermarket’s motion for summary judgment: it denied the motion as to the discrimination, retaliation, interference, and wrongful-termination claims and granted summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim. It granted Ion Trading’s motion to dismiss, denied Appin’s motion for leave to amend, and denied the Rule 56(d) request for additional discovery. The court set a case-management conference for February 11, 2025.