JIHSHYR YIH V. TSMC, No. 20-17237 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JIHSHYR YIH, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-17237 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 5:20-cv-04184-EJD MEMORANDUM* TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 17, 2021** Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges. JihShyr Yih appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction his action alleging federal and state law employment claims against Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (“TSMC”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Yih’s action for lack of personal jurisdiction because Yih failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that TSMC had such continuous and systematic contacts with California to establish general personal jurisdiction, or sufficient claim-related contacts with California to provide the court with specific personal jurisdiction over TSMC. See Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1015, 1020-25 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing requirements for general and specific personal jurisdiction). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Yih’s request that this court sanction TSMC and two of its employees, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 20-17237

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.