Freedman v. Suntrust Banks, Inc.
139 F. Supp. 3d 271
D.D.C.2015Background
- Plaintiff Shana Freedman, a Florida resident, alleges SunTrust’s income verification policy for long-term disability income violates the FHA and ECOA.
- Plaintiff’s loan application was blocked in 2012 and 2014 due to SunTrust requiring disability-continuation documentation; she could not provide Social Security documentation to guarantee benefits.
- Defendants SunTrust Banks, Inc. (Georgia) and SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. (Virginia) have extensive nationwide operations including in the District of Columbia.
- Plaintiff filed a putative class action in D.D.C. asserting discriminatory lending policies; Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court found lack of personal jurisdiction, declined jurisdictional discovery, but transferred the case to the Middle District of Florida under § 1406(a) and § 1631 in the interest of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DC court may exercise general jurisdiction | Freedman argues Defendants are essentially at home in DC due to a brick-and-mortar presence. | Defendants contend their principal places of business are GA and VA; DC presence is not 'at home'. | Court lacks general jurisdiction over Defendants. |
| Whether jurisdictional discovery is warranted | Discovery could show contacts sufficient for jurisdiction. | Discovery would be speculative and not justify jurisdiction. | Jurisdictional discovery not warranted. |
| Whether transfer under §1406(a) for lack of personal jurisdiction is in the interest of justice | Transfer to Middle District of Florida prevents time-barred FHA claims and is efficient. | Transfer not appropriate where lack of personal jurisdiction; venue issues unresolved. | Transfer under §1406(a) is in the interest of justice. |
| Whether transfer under §1631 is appropriate | §1631 allows transfer when lack of jurisdiction exists and is in the interest of justice. | §1631 supports transfer only in limited circumstances; some courts disagree on scope. | Transfer under §1631 is appropriate; case could have been brought in the Middle District of Florida. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) (general jurisdiction requires essentially at-home, not pervasive contacts)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tire Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) (limits general jurisdiction to at-home corporations based on affiliations nationwide/worldwide)
- Gorman v. Ameritrade Holding Corp., 293 F.3d 506 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (traditional test of continuous and systematic contacts; superseded by Daimler-Goodyear framework)
- Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (1962) (transfer allowed to cure venue obstacles and permit adjudication on merits)
- Sinclair v. Kleindienst, 711 F.2d 291 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (transfer within 1406 where defendant challenges jurisdiction to avoid improper venue)