Cioffi v. Gilbert Enterprises, Inc.
971 F. Supp. 2d 129
D. Mass.2012Background
- This is a Massachusetts-domiciled plaintiff’s personal injury action arising from an April 2009 assault at Club Fantasies in Providence, RI.
- Plaintiff alleges defendant Gilbert Enterprises, Inc. failed to provide a safe workplace for dancers at the Rhode Island club.
- Defendant, an RI corporation, removed the case from Middlesex Superior Court and challenges personal jurisdiction, venue, and potential statute-of-limitations defenses.
- Plaintiff alleges substantial Massachusetts connections: half of club patrons and half of employees are Massachusetts residents; plaintiff contacted the RI club while residing in MA.
- The court accepts April 19, 2009 as the injury date for pleading purposes; service issues complicated proceedings for co-defendant Phonesavanh Phengthalangsy.
- The court ultimately declines to rule on statute of limitations and, after briefing, transfers the case to the District of Rhode Island, finding no personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Gilbert Enterprises | Cioffi asserts general or specific jurisdiction based on MA contacts. | Gilbert Enterprises contends no MA general or specific jurisdiction exists. | Court finds no general or specific MA jurisdiction. |
| Whether MA long-arm could reach Gilbert Enterprises for this tort | Contacts with MA relate to the injury and employment sought by plaintiff. | Contacts are insufficient to constitute purposeful availment or minimum contacts. | Insufficient minimum contacts; MA long-arm not satisfied. |
| Whether venue was improper or transfer is appropriate | Venue could be proper in MA given plaintiff’s link to MA and club contact. | Improper venue; transfer to RI may be appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). | Transfer may be appropriate; court defers decision pending briefing on transfer vs dismissal. |
| Whether statute of limitations forecloses the claim | Limitation period concerns may be tolled by transfer; timely re-filing in RI possible. | Limitations bar the action if dismissed in MA. | Court did not resolve on limitations; withheld ruling pending supplemental briefing. |
| Whether, if jurisdiction is lacking, the case should be dismissed or transferred | Dismissal would bar refiling; transfer preserves claims. | Transfer is permissible under § 1406(a) in the interests of justice. | Court ultimately transfers case to District of Rhode Island. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, P.A., 290 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2002) (burden of proving personal jurisdiction; prima facie standard when no evidentiary hearing)
- Foster-Miller, Inc. v. Babcock & Wilcox Can., 46 F.3d 138 (1st Cir. 1995) (various standards for evaluating jurisdiction; primacy to prima facie at motion to dismiss)
- Boit v. Gar-Tec Prods., Inc., 967 F.2d 671 (1st Cir. 1992) (constitutional limits on jurisdiction; use of prima facie standard)
- United States v. Swiss Am. Bank, Ltd., 274 F.3d 610 (1st Cir. 2001) (methods for determining personal jurisdiction; prima facie analysis)
- Cossaboon v. Maine Medical Center, 600 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2010) (general jurisdiction requires continuous and systematic contacts)
- Harlow v. Children’s Hospital, 432 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2005) (stringent standard for general jurisdiction based on MA contacts)
- Phillips Exeter Acad. v. Howard Phillips Fund, Inc., 196 F.3d 284 (1st Cir. 1999) (requires purposeful availment; awareness of residence insufficient)
- Adelson v. Hananel, 510 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2007) (three-part minimum contacts test: relatedness, availment, reasonableness)
- U.S. Yachts, Inc. v. Ocean Yachts, Inc., 894 F.2d 9 (1st Cir. 1990) (minimum contacts analysis for long-arm jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (gestalt factors for reasonableness of jurisdiction)
- Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1962) (transfer when venue is improper or jurisdiction lacking; in the interests of justice)
- Pedzewick v. Foe, 963 F. Supp. 48 (D. Mass. 1997) (transfer when personal jurisdiction lacking; equities of justice)
- Tatro v. Manor Care, 416 Mass. 763 (Mass. 1994) (but-for causation in Massachusetts related contacts)
- Phillips v. Prairie Eye Ctr., 530 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2008) (solicits and avails state law protections; residence awareness not enough)