Gallopo v. Giannella Modern Baking Company
4:13-cv-03067
M.D. Penn.Apr 10, 2014Background
- Plaintiffs Michael and Bonnie Gallopo filed suit in MDPa on Dec 20, 2013 seeking damages from a New Jersey MVA in which Gallopo was injured.
- Defendants Giannella Modern Baking Company (GMBC) and Louis M. Colli are New Jersey residents; GMBC allegedly conducts business and delivers into the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
- Plaintiffs allege negligence (Count I), vicarious liability (Count II), and loss of consortium (Count III) with damages exceeding $75,000.
- Defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(2) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; tolling agreement extended the limitations period until 60 days after the Court rules.
- Court concludes there is diversity jurisdiction but analyzes personal jurisdiction; finds GMBC lacks general and any specific Pennsylvania contacts;Transfers potential NJ venue if jurisdiction is lacking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over GMBC. | Gallopo contends GMBC conducts continuous Pennsylvania business. | GMBC has no Pennsylvania presence or consent to jurisdiction. | No general or specific jurisdiction; in Pennsylvania, transfer, not dismissal. |
| Whether Colli can be subject to PA personal jurisdiction. | Colli is GMBC’s employee; under agency theory, PA jurisdiction applies. | No basis to exercise jurisdiction over Colli absent GMBC’s contact. | Lacking personal jurisdiction over Colli as GMBC lacks jurisdiction. |
| Whether the case should be transferred under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). | If no PA jurisdiction, transfer to NJ is improper. | New Jersey is proper forum; transfer better serves convenience and NJ law. | Recommend transfer to the District of New Jersey. |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction supports this action despite lack of PA jurisdiction. | Diversity exists due to different states' residents. | Diversity alone does not cure lack of personal jurisdiction; jurisdiction analysis remains. | Diversity exists; however personal jurisdiction governs venue and transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- DiLoreto v. Costigan, 600 F.Supp.2d 671 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (Rule 12(b)(2) burden on plaintiff to show jurisdiction; discovery may be necessary)
- Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217 (3d Cir. 1992) (due process limits on nonresident jurisdiction; connection to forum is key)
- Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Cola, 745 F.Supp.2d 588 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (general jurisdiction requires extensive, pervasive contacts)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (general jurisdiction requires substantial forum contacts)
- Weber v. Jolly Hotels, 977 F.Supp.327 (D.N.J. 1997) (local contacts required for jurisdiction; general rule for nonresidents)