The court’s March 20 order in Vogel v. Exocel Bio Incorporated allows Jillian Vogel’s wage dispute to proceed in Phoenix, rejecting Exocel’s argument that its lack of a physical office or substantial employee presence in Arizona insulated it from suit.
Vogel, an Arizona resident, sued Exocel, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania, alleging failure to pay minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act, as well as failure to pay wages under the Arizona Wage Act.
Exocel moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), arguing it lacked sufficient contacts with Arizona to justify personal jurisdiction.
The court found Vogel made a prima facie showing that Exocel purposefully availed itself of the Arizona market.
In 2024, approximately 17 percent of Exocel’s sales came from customers in Arizona, with about 60 customer accounts located in the state, including what Vogel alleged was the company’s largest customer.
Exocel regularly sold and shipped products to Arizona, and Vogel, who served as Vice President of Sales and Marketing, worked remotely from her Arizona home.
The court noted that while Exocel did not own or lease real property in Arizona, it had “affirmative, intentional, and sustained engagements with Arizona” through its sales and customer relationships.
The court also found Vogel’s claims related to Exocel’s forum contacts, as her commission and salary were tied to sales efforts and team management that involved Arizona-based sales consultants and customers.
On the reasonableness prong, the court weighed seven factors and found Exocel failed to make a “compelling case” that litigating in Arizona would be unreasonable.
Exocel argued it would face substantial travel and litigation expenses, but the court found no evidence that the inconvenience was so great as to constitute a deprivation of due process.
The court also denied Exocel’s alternative motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, finding Vogel’s choice of forum was entitled to substantial deference.
Exocel has a separate ongoing lawsuit against Vogel in Pennsylvania, alleging breach of contract, theft of products, and unlawful use of trade secrets.