Hajela v. ING Groep

Hajela v. ING Groep

Opinion

 [*230]  RULING RE: ING GROEP, N.V.'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (DOC. NO. 55)

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Sourabh Hajela, brings this action against defendants, ING Groep, N.V., Inc. ("ING Groep"), ING North America Insurance Corporation ("NAIC"), Catherine Smith and Steve Van Wyk, both in their individual capacities, alleging retaliation and wrongful termination in violation of Title VII of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ¹, 18 U.S.C § 1514A, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a) ("FMLA"), and Connecticut General Statutes §§ 33-1336 and 31-51q. Hajela also asserts common law claims under Connecticut law. See Am. Compl. P 1 (Doc. No. 45).

ING Groep moves the court to dismiss Hajela's Amended Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).  [*231]  See Def.'s Mem. in Support (Doc. No. 55). ² Hajela opposes the Motion to Dismiss and moves, in the alternative, to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 ³ (Doc. Nos. 58). Similarly, the remaining defendants Smith, Van Wyk and NAIC move to transfer the case to New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)(Doc. No. 67).

II. FACTS ⁴ 

A. ING Corporate Structure

Hajela is a resident of Monroe, New York. ING Groep is a business organized pursuant to the laws of the Netherlands. It has various direct and indirect subsidiary companies located in the United States, as well as in other countries. Its principal place of business in the United States is in New York. ING Groep's stock is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. NAIC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Georgia. NAIC is a wholly owned subsidiary of ING America Insurance Holdings, Inc. ("ING America"). ING America is a wholly owned subsidiary of ING Groep. ⁵ NAIC is authorized to do business in Connecticut; ING Groep is not.

At all times relevant to his Complaint, not only does Hajela claim that he was an employee of NAIC; Hajela claims that he was also an employee of ING Groep. Am. Compl. P 3. He claims that the two corporations "jointly  [**4] employed" him because they act as "an integrated employer" based on common management, centralized control of labor relations and common ownership. Id.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.