32 | March/April 2022 | BAEC Bulletin
BY KEVIN M. HOGAN AND SEAN C. MCPHEE Western District Case Notes
Personal Jurisdiction and Venue In Bartosiewicz v. Nelsen , No. 20-cv-06513-EAW (Sept. 29, 2021)— an action for breach of contract concerning the purchase and sale of antique muscle cars—defendant moved to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Observing that there are two ways that New York courts exercises personal jurisdiction over non-residents (i.e. general jurisdiction under CPLR 301, and specific jurisdiction under CPLR 302), the Court first found that defendant was not subject to general jurisdiction in New York because he is a resident of Minnesota. The Court then determined that defendant was not subject to specific jurisdiction in New York because he never travelled here; the automobiles and relevant paperwork were exchanged in Minnesota; no in-person negotiations took place anywhere, and instead were undertaken by telephone; there was no choice- of-law clause in the sales agreement; and the sales agreement did not require the parties to send notices or payment into New York. In reaching its conclusion, the Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that personal jurisdiction existed because, by negotiating the contract by telephone while plaintiff was in New York, defendant “projected himself into New York,” finding that such contact with New York was minimal and would not comport with due process because defendant did not purposefully avail himself of New York’s laws. Finally, the Court noted that it is authorized to transfer the action to another venue even though it lacks personal jurisdiction over defendant, and then transferred the action to the District of Minnesota in the interest of justice. Standing In Lackawanna Chiropractic P.C. v. Tivity Health Support, LLC , 18-cv-649-LJV-JJM (Aug. 27, 2021)—a putative class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act— plaintiff moved for preliminary approval of a modified class action settlement, to which the Magistrate Judge recommended the settlement not be approved on grounds that the parties had not shown that each member of the settlement class was harmed by defendant’s actions. The parties objected to the recommendation, and the Court respectfully agreed, finding instead that plaintiff had adequately alleged Article III standing. The Court noted that the “threshold question” of whether a plaintiff has Article III standing must remain “distinct” from the “question of whether the plaintiff a valid claim on the merits.” Accepting plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Court held that at this early stage of litigation, before the completion of discovery and without a pending motion for summary judgment, plaintiff had sufficiently established that the proposed class had standing. Merely because the definition of the class might include plaintiffs who ultimately could not establish their entitlement to relief on the merits did not deprive the Court of jurisdiction over the proposed settlement class’s claims. To insist that class members submit evidence of personal standing, rather than simply rely on plausible standing allegations, would cause the “standing inquiry [to] essentially collapse . . . into the merits.” Bankruptcy Appeals In Capozzolo v. Grow America Fund, Inc. , 21-cv-00757-WMS (Oct. 26, 2021), the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order in an adversary proceeding granting summary judgment in favor of a creditor
KEVIN M. HOGAN Managing Partner Phillips Lytle LLP
SEAN C. MCPHEE Partner Phillips Lytle LLP
Powered by FlippingBook