Bacarella Transportation Svc Inc v. J.M. Logistics, LLC
3:11-cv-00147
D. Conn.Sep 29, 2011Background
- BTX sues JM, Jenkins, Marsden and CGL for tortious interference with contract; counts for breach of contract and good faith and fair dealing are not at issue.
- Defendants CGL, Jenkins, and Marsden move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; BTX seeks expedited jurisdictional discovery and a hearing.
- BTX alleges CGL and JM engaged in actions to lure BTX customers away in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware after JM began working with CGL.
- JM is an LLC with members including Jenkins and Marsden; BTX is Connecticut-based.
- Court ultimately transfers the case portion involving CGL, Jenkins, and Marsden to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; jurisdictional motions are deemed moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CT long-arm § 33-929(f) confers jurisdiction over CGL. | BTX contends § 33-929(f)(1) or (2) applies via in-state transportation and Connecticut solicitation. | CGL asserts neither in-state transportation nor website solicitation connects to BTX's tort claim. | No jurisdiction under § 33-929(f) for CGL. |
| Whether CT long-arm § 52-59b confers jurisdiction over Jenkins and Marsden. | BTX claims they transacted business, caused a tort outside CT, or used CT computer networks. | Start-up negotiations outside CT and lack of Connecticut-based injury fail to satisfy § 52-59b. | No jurisdiction under § 52-59b for Jenkins and Marsden. |
| Whether BTX is entitled to jurisdictional discovery and an evidentiary hearing. | Discovery could establish jurisdiction. | Discretionary discovery is inappropriate where allegations already fail to show jurisdiction. | Jurisdictional discovery denied; no evidentiary hearing required. |
| Whether the case should be transferred due to lack of personal jurisdiction. | Transfer under § 1404(a) to EDPA. | Transfer should occur to a court with proper jurisdiction. | Transfer of Count III to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under § 1631; motions to dismiss moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomason v. Chemical Bank, 234 Conn. 281 (1995) (arising-out-of contract nexus not satisfied by in-state transportation)
- Savin v. Ranier, 898 F.2d 304 (2d Cir. 1990) (start-up financing outside CT not enough for jurisdiction)
- Goudis v. American Currency Trading Corp., 233 F. Supp. 2d 330 (D. Conn. 2002) (start-up negotiations outside CT insufficient to confer in-state jurisdiction)
- Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502 (2d Cir. 1994) (prima facie jurisdiction established on motions; affidavits considered in light favorable to plaintiff)
- Ball v. Metallurgie Hoboken-Overpelt, 902 F.2d 194 (2d Cir. 1990) (prima facie jurisdiction standard on 12(b)(2) motion)
- Miller v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 664 F.2d 899 (2d Cir. 1981) (discretion to permit jurisdictional discovery; veil-piercing context)
- Belden Techs., Inc. v. LS Corp., 626 F. Supp. 2d 448 (D. Del. 2009) (fishing expedition prohibited in jurisdictional discovery)
- Hoffritz for Cutlery, Inc. v. Amaiac, Ltd., 763 F.2d 55 (2d Cir. 1985) (plaintiff bears burden to show jurisdiction by preponderance)