Dennis L. Turney, a married man v. HYUNDAI CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT USA INCORPORATED and HYUNDAI HEAVY INDUSTRIES LIMITED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
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
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00808-SRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
San Francisco, California
FILED
MAY 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 4 --

Before: RIPPLE,*** SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Dennis L. Turney appeals from the district court’s order dismissing a
diversity action in which he asserted a state law discrimination claim under the
Arizona Civil Rights Act (“ACRA”) against Hyundai Construction Equipment
USA, Inc. (“HCE”) and its parent company, Hyundai Heavy Industries, Ltd.
(“HHI”). He also appeals the district court’s order dismissing his common law
claim against HHI for its allegedly negligent hiring and supervision of John Lim.
The district court dismissed the state discrimination claim on the ground of res
judicata. We review that ruling de novo. Tritz v. U.S. Postal Serv., 721 F.3d 1133,
1136 (9th Cir. 2013). With respect to the negligence claim, the district court held
that it lacked personal jurisdiction over HHI. We also review that ruling de novo.
King v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 632 F.3d 570, 573 (9th Cir. 2011). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We now affirm the judgment of the district
court.
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 Honorable Kenneth F. Ripple, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 4 --

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, 134 S. Ct. 746, 760-61 (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, 131 S. Ct. 2780, 2788 (2011) (noting that a foreign corporation subjects
3

-- 3 of 4 --

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, 134 S. Ct.
1115, 1121-23 (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
dismissal resulted in actual and substantial prejudice to the litigant.” Wells Fargo
& Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430 n.24 (9th Cir. 1977)
(alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Turney has made
no such showing.
AFFIRMED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --