BATISTA v. O'JAYS GIGS, INC., 2:18-cv-00636

Plaintiff Pablo Batista, a Pennsylvania resident and legally blind professional percussionist, alleges O'Jay's Gigs, Inc. (OJG) and individual defendants (Levert; Walter Williams) offered him a staff percussionist position for an international tour, then rescinded the hire shortly before the tour allegedly because of his disability.
Plaintiff claims breach of contract and disability discrimination under the ADA, PHRA, and New York law; he seeks damages for lost earnings and other harms.
Recruitment and negotiations were conducted primarily by the O'Jays' musical director (Doc Williams), who is based in New York; Plaintiff alleges OJG arranged travel from Philadelphia and other tour logistics.
Moving defendants (OJG, Levert, Walter Williams) are nonresidents: OJG incorporated and based in Ohio; Levert a Nevada resident; Walter Williams primarily Ohio/Nevada. They moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2).
The court treated defendant affidavits and pleadings, found Plaintiff had the burden to make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, and evaluated only specific jurisdiction (general jurisdiction conceded absent).
Court concluded telephonic recruitment of a Pennsylvania resident for work performed almost entirely outside Pennsylvania did not constitute purposeful availment; dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction granted. Transfer to Ohio under §1404(a) denied for lack of venue/transfer showing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction (specific)	Batista: recruiting a PA resident and arranging travel/schedule invoked PA protections and purposely availed defendants to PA	Moving Defs: contacts limited to recruiting a PA resident; negotiations not in PA; work performed mainly outside PA—no purposeful availment	Court: No specific jurisdiction; telephonic solicitation and logistical arrangements alone insufficient to establish purposeful availment
Jurisdictional discovery	Batista: discovery should reveal frequency of defendants' contacts with PA	Moving Defs: not warranted; plaintiff must show claims arise from such contacts	Court: Denied—claims do not arise from alleged broader contacts, so discovery would not change outcome
Transfer under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a)	Batista: if jurisdiction lacking, transfer to N.D. Ohio (OJG HQ) is appropriate	Moving Defs: burden on plaintiff to show venue and convenience factors favor transfer	Court: Denied—Plaintiff failed to establish proper venue in transferee district or analyze Jumara factors
General jurisdiction	Batista: impliedly conceded	Moving Defs: OJG and individuals not at home in PA	Court: No general jurisdiction; parties "at home" in their domiciles/states of incorporation/principal place of business

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts test for due process)
Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (purposeful availment requirement)
Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (relationship among forum, defendant, litigation)
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (specific jurisdiction scope)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful direction/availment analysis)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (general jurisdiction limits)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (corporate "at home" standard for general jurisdiction)
Mellon Bank, PSFS Nat'l Ass'n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217 (Third Circuit on purposeful availment and plaintiff burden)
Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, Inc., 566 F.3d 324 (jurisdictional discovery should be allowed unless claim is clearly frivolous)
Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (factors governing §1404(a) transfer)