564 F.Supp.3d 287
W.D.N.Y.2021Background:
- Plaintiff Robert Bartosiewicz (Rochester, NY) contracted to buy a black 1971 Plymouth Barracuda from Greg Nelsen (Prior Lake, MN) in a trade exchanging three vehicles valued in aggregate at $1,025,000.
- The parties executed a written sales agreement; Plaintiff’s employee delivered the three vehicles to Minnesota and Plaintiff retrieved the black Barracuda there.
- After the car arrived in Rochester, an inspection revealed non-original die‑lot numbers on several parts, undermining the claimed “numbers matching” condition; Plaintiff rejected the car, notified Nelsen, who refused a refund and offered a price reduction.
- Plaintiff stored and later resold the car for $700,000 and sued in W.D.N.Y. alleging breach of contract, breach of warranties, unjust enrichment, and fraud.
- Nelsen, served in Minnesota, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue; the Court found no statutory or constitutional personal jurisdiction and, in the interest of justice, transferred the case to the District of Minnesota.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General jurisdiction (CPLR 301) | N/A (no substantive claim of domicile in NY) | Nelsen is domiciled in Minnesota; not subject to general jurisdiction in NY | No general jurisdiction — defendant is not domiciled in NY |
| Specific jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1) ("transacts business") | Contract was signed (electronically) to supply a car to NY and defendant negotiated with a NY buyer | Contract was negotiated and executed in Minnesota; vehicles exchanged in Minnesota; contacts with NY minimal | No specific jurisdiction — defendant did not purposefully avail himself of NY laws |
| Specific jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(2)/(3) (tort) | Fraudulent statements were projected electronically to Plaintiff in NY, permitting jurisdiction | Alleged fraud is collateral to contract and the tortious conduct and injury occurred outside NY | No jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(2)/(3) — situs of commercial tort is where the act occurred, not where economic loss was felt |
| Venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 / transfer under § 1406(a) | Venue proper in W.D.N.Y. (plaintiff in Rochester; New York UCC applies) | Significant events and omissions occurred in Minnesota; venue improper in W.D.N.Y. | Venue improper in W.D.N.Y.; court transfers case to District of Minnesota in interest of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction typically limited to domicile)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (domicile controls general jurisdiction inquiry)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts and due process standard for specific jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and foreseeability principles)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (fair‑play reasonableness factors for specific jurisdiction)
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (limits on jurisdiction based on mere foreseeability)
- Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158 (sending goods into NY can establish purposeful direction/contacts)
- Sunward Electric, Inc. v. McDonald, 362 F.3d 17 (multi‑factor test for CPLR 302(a)(1) purposeful availment analysis)