Bissonnette v. Podlaski
138 F. Supp. 3d 616
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Plaintiff Matthew Bissonnette, a retired Navy SEAL, published No Easy Day about the bin Laden raid under the Mark Owen pseudonym.
- DOJ investigated whether he violated contractual duties and the DOD threatened civil forfeiture profits from the book.
- Plaintiffs sued his former attorney Kevin Podlaski and law firm Carson Boxberger, LLP for legal malpractice and fiduciary breach.
- Defendants advised him to forego pre-publication government review and to rely on attorney review to remove sensitive information.
- Engagement letters showed Defendants’ New York focus; however, Defendants conducted all actions from Indiana and did not solicit New York business.
- The court granted dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, none of the defendants having sufficient NY contacts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 302(a)(1) confers NY jurisdiction. | Bissonnette/Bissonnette’s claim arises from NY-connected contract | Defendants undertook NY-related work but not as a NY transaction | No jurisdiction under § 302(a)(1) Reduction: no purposeful NY transaction by Defendants |
| Whether § 302(a)(2) supports jurisdiction. | Defendants committed torts in NY through advice leading to consequences here | No physical presence in NY, so no tortious act within state | No jurisdiction under § 302(a)(2) |
| Whether § 302(a)(3)(ii) supports jurisdiction. | Defendants’ acts foreseeably affected NY; substantial interstate revenue | No purposeful availment or NY-directed activity | No jurisdiction under § 302(a)(3)(ii); no purposeful availment |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank Bruxelles Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779 (2d Cir.1999) (out-of-state lawyers' activities must project into New York to support 302(a)(1) jurisdiction)
- Parke-Bernet Galleries, Inc. v. Franklyn, 308 N.Y.S.2d 337 (N.Y.1969) (opinion that a defendant must actively participate in a NY transaction to confer jurisdiction)
- Lombardi, Inc. v. Smithfield, 11 A.3d 1180 (Del. 1989) (irreparable harm factor for preliminary injunction)
- Lipson v. Birch, 46 F. Supp. 3d 206 (E.D.N.Y.2014) (discusses scope of 302(a)(3) and NY activity)
- LaMarca v. Pak-Mor Mfg. Co., 95 N.Y.2d 210 (N.Y. 2000) (set forth the five elements for 302(a)(3)(ii) jurisdiction)
- Ingraham v. Carroll, 90 N.Y.2d 592 (N.Y.1997) (discusses foreseeability versus purposeful availment)