Yih v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, LTD

Background

JihShyr Yih, representing himself, sued Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, LTD. (TSMC) under the New York State Human Rights Law. He alleged age, national-origin, marital-status, and familial-status discrimination, as well as retaliation, based on TSMC’s failure to hire him. The complaint concerned interviews in which TSMC personnel allegedly asked questions about Yih’s family, marriage, children, education, and military service. TSMC later rejected him for the positions.

Yih originally filed the current case in New York Supreme Court in September 2021. TSMC removed it to the Southern District of New York based on diversity jurisdiction. Yih moved to remand, arguing that TSMC’s removal was untimely. TSMC moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), for lack of personal jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim.

Motion to Remand

The court denied the motion to remand. It held that, because the complaint was required to be served on TSMC, the relevant 30-day period began when TSMC received the complaint. TSMC received the complaint on September 30, 2021, and filed its notice of removal on October 28, 2021. The court therefore found the removal timely. The court did not need to decide TSMC’s separate argument that service had been defective.

Motion to Dismiss

The court addressed personal jurisdiction before the failure-to-state-a-claim issue. It applied collateral estoppel, also called issue preclusion, which prevents a party from relitigating an issue already decided after that party had a full and fair opportunity to contest it.

In a prior related proceeding, the court had determined that TSMC was not subject to general or specific personal jurisdiction in New York. That decision found, among other things, that TSMC did not actively solicit substantial business in New York, did not regularly recruit New York residents, and had no offices, bank accounts, property, or employees in New York. The prior decision was affirmed on appeal, and Yih had been given opportunities to present additional facts and amend his pleading.

The court found that Yih’s current jurisdictional allegations and theories depended on relitigating issues resolved in that earlier proceeding. The court therefore held that collateral estoppel barred Yih from arguing that TSMC was subject to personal jurisdiction in New York. Because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over TSMC, it did not decide TSMC’s Rule 12(b)(6) arguments concerning whether Yih stated valid discrimination or retaliation claims.

Disposition

The court denied Yih’s motion to remand and granted TSMC’s motion to dismiss. Because the jurisdictional problem could not be corrected through amendment, the court dismissed Yih’s complaint with prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. Judge Kenneth M. Karas issued the order on May 19, 2022.