Yih v. Taiwan Semiconductor Man ufacturing Company,Ltd

Background

JihShyr Yih, who was proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company,Ltd (TSMC) discriminated against him during its hiring process. TSMC had asked a Singapore-based recruiting firm to help fill a senior analyst position located in Hsinchu, Taiwan. Yih participated in interviews from his home in New York with TSMC recruiting and information-technology personnel residing in Taiwan. He alleged that interviewers asked questions about his family and that TSMC declined to hire him.

Yih filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and later received a notice allowing him to sue. He first sued TSMC in a prior related proceeding, where the court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. Yih then filed this action in the Northern District of California.

Motion and jurisdictional standards

TSMC moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority over a defendant. The court explained that a nonresident company must have sufficient contacts with the state, consistent with due process, for the court to exercise that authority.

The court considered both general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. General jurisdiction allows a court to hear any claim against a company that is essentially “at home” in the state. Specific jurisdiction concerns claims connected to the company’s activities in the state.

General jurisdiction

The court rejected Yih’s argument that TSMC was essentially at home in California. TSMC is a Taiwanese corporation with its principal place of business in Hsinchu, Taiwan. The opinion states that TSMC had no California office, no designated agent for service of process in California, and no employees working in California. TSMC had a California subsidiary, TSMC North America, but the court held that the subsidiary’s existence and revenue did not make TSMC subject to general jurisdiction.

The court also rejected Yih’s argument that TSMC and TSMC North America were alter egos. The alter ego doctrine can allow a court to treat separate corporations as one when there is sufficient unity of ownership and control and maintaining their separate identities would cause fraud or injustice. The court found that Yih had not shown the required unity of interest. His allegations about shared management, a common website, a common email domain, and a shared online system did not establish the day-to-day control and disregard of corporate separateness required for an alter ego finding. The court also found that he had not provided facts showing that respecting the companies’ separate identities would produce an inequitable result.

Specific jurisdiction

The court also rejected specific jurisdiction. Yih argued that TSMC purposefully directed activities toward California through its website and online business activities. The court found that the alleged discriminatory conduct occurred during communications between Yih in New York and TSMC officials in Taiwan, not in California. It also found that Yih had not connected TSMC’s website and other California-related activities to the alleged discrimination. Because Yih did not satisfy the first two requirements for specific jurisdiction, the court did not consider whether exercising jurisdiction would be reasonable.

Disposition

Judge Davila granted TSMC’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed Yih’s action against TSMC. Because the court lacked personal jurisdiction, it did not decide whether the complaint stated a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court denied as moot, without prejudice, the remaining grounds for dismissal.