Ruffing v. Wipro Limited

On behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, Plaintiff David Ruffing filed this case in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that defendant Wipro Limited violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Wipro moved to dismiss the FLSA claims for lack of personal jurisdiction to the extent that they were brought on behalf of Wipro employees outside Pennsylvania. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in Bane v. Netlink, 925 F.2d 637 (3d Cir. 1991), that registration by a foreign corporation to do business in Pennsylvania subjects the corporation to the exercise of personal jurisdiction by Pennsylvania courts because such registration carries with it consent to personal jurisdiction, and although Wipro is registered to do business in Pennsylvania, the district court granted Wipro’s motion. Focusing on Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014), the court stated that the standard for general jurisdiction has changed since Bane was decided.

Mr. Ruffing appealed the ruling to the Third Circuit, where Public Citizen filed an amicus brief supporting his position. Our brief explained that, under long-standing Supreme Court precedent, a foreign corporation’s registration to do business in a state may constitute consent to the exercise of personal jurisdiction by courts in that state. The brief further explained that neither the relevant Supreme Court precedent nor Bane is affected by Daimler, which did not address consent-based jurisdiction.

After we filed our brief, the parties reached a settlement and voluntarily dismissed the appeal.”