Jurisdiction – Remote employment – Purposeful availment

Listen to this article

Where a Massachusetts plaintiff has alleged nonpayment of wages, the complaint should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, as the two Florida-based defendants did not purposefully avail themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in the commonwealth.

“Plaintiff Joel Fuller (‘Fuller’) brings this action against his former employers, Carrera & Partners, Inc. (‘Carrera & Partners’) and its president, Nick (Dominic) Carrera (‘Nick Carrera’ or ‘Carrera’) (together, ‘Defendants’), asserting claims related to the termination of his employment. Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Fuller’s complaint, … pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. …

“Plaintiff Joel Fuller resides in Medway, Massachusetts. … Defendant Carrera & Partners, an automobile advertising agency, is a Florida corporation with a principal place of business in Deerfield Beach, Florida. … Defendant Nick Carrera, a Florida resident, was the company’s president at all relevant times. …

“… Here, Fuller’s claims, all of which are related to the alleged nonpayment of wages by Defendants, are sufficiently based on Defendants’ contacts directed to Fuller in Massachusetts, in particular Nick Carrera’s phone call terminating Fuller’s employment. …

“The Court finds that due process nonetheless bars this Court’s exercise of specific jurisdiction over Defendants, because Defendants’ Massachusetts contacts do not ‘represent a purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities’ in the commonwealth. …

“Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Massachusetts contacts include (1) negotiating employment terms with Fuller while he was located in Massachusetts; (2) retaining Fuller as a remote, probationary employee for about three months while aware of his Massachusetts residency; (3) deriving revenue from Fuller’s Massachusetts-based work; and (4) sending Fuller to a client pitch meeting in Massachusetts. While the question of purposeful availment for a remote employee, at least under the facts of this case, remains ‘more grey than black and white,’ … on the present record, and as to all defendants, the Court finds that current precedent falls short of requiring a finding of purposeful availment where the at-issue remote employment was as transient as Fuller’s, so slightly touched on Massachusetts commerce, and had an appreciable aspect of fortuity. …

“… Given that Fuller performed only approximately ten days of work for Defendants, the fact that the employment relationship did not progress past Fuller’s initial probationary period, and the thin evidence surrounding Defendants’ business connections with Massachusetts, the Court does not find that Defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in the commonwealth. Therefore, the Court may not exercise specific jurisdiction over Defendants, and stops the minimum contacts analysis short of a discussion of whether such exercise would be reasonable.”

Fuller v. Carrera & Partners, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-196-26) (17 pages) (Burroughs, J.) (Civil Action No. 25-cv-11565-ADB) (March 31, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.