GOLDSTEIN v. BERKOWITZ
3:10-cv-04644
D.N.J.Mar 18, 2011Background
- Plaintiff Linda Goldstein sues Berkowitz and Insurance Design Group after sale of a life policy portion to a life settlement firm.
- Berkowitz is a Florida life insurance agent; he procured the Transamerica policy for Dr. Goldstein, a New Jersey and Florida resident.
- Goldstein executives moved to sell a portion of the policy; Ashar Group brokered the life settlement with First Global Trust (NJ).
- Berkowitz referred Ashar to Plaintiff and received a $10,000 referral fee split with another Florida broker; Berkowitz was not a licensed life settlement broker.
- Plaintiff alleges Berkowitz advised on rescission and contract details from New Jersey; Defendants argue most contacts occurred in Florida and relate only to the original policy.
- Court held evidentiary hearing and determined there is no personal jurisdiction; in lieu of dismissal, case will be transferred to the Southern District of Florida.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has specific jurisdiction over Berkowitz and IDG | Goldstein argues Berkowitz engaged with New Jersey via referral and communications tied to the life settlement. | Berkowitz had no NJ-based activities related to the life settlement contract; contacts were Florida-centric. | No specific jurisdiction over Berkowitz/IDG. |
| Whether the Calder effects test supports jurisdiction | Plaintiff contends Berkowitz purposely targeted NJ through life settlement actions. | Under Calder, no express aiming at NJ proven; minimal targeted conduct. | Calder effects test not satisfied; no jurisdiction. |
| Whether transfer to Florida is appropriate in lieu of dismissal | (n/a) | Transfer to Florida is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. 1404/1406. | Case transferred to the Southern District of Florida. |
| Whether the plaintiff can demonstrate minimum contacts via the life settlement activities | Contacts related to sale and settlement should support jurisdiction. | Contacts were Florida-centric and not tied to NJ-litigated events. | Insufficient minimum contacts to support NJ jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (purposeful avai1ment and minimum contacts test)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. Supreme Court 1980) (foreseeability and forum connections)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (U.S. Supreme Court 1958) (minimum contacts require purposeful activities in forum)
- Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, N.A. v. DiVeronica Bros., Inc., 983 F.2d 551 (3d Cir. 1993) (minimum contacts and related contacts analysis)
- D'Jamoos v. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., 566 F.3d 102 (3d Cir. 2009) (multi-factor test for specific jurisdiction)
- IMO Indus., Inc. v. Kiekert, 155 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 1998) (Calder effects test and express targeting guidance)
- Marks v. Alfa Group, 369 F. App’x 368 (3d Cir. 2010) ( Calder express targeting standard (narrow application))
- Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Myers & Assocs., Ltd., 41 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 1995) (attorney-client relationships alone do not establish jurisdiction)