Hood v. Ascent Medical Corp.
691 F. App'x 8
2d Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Ciaran Hood, a Northern Ireland resident, sued various defendants (corporate entities tied to Oman and U.S. entities) alleging employment-related breaches and termination after funding failures.
- The district court initially entered a partial default judgment for Hood as to liability but left damages unresolved and scheduled an inquest on damages.
- The district court later vacated that partial default judgment and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction; Hood appealed.
- Defendants did not appear or contest jurisdiction in the district court; service issues led to dismissal of one board member (Peggy Farley).
- Hood relied on allegations of corporate contacts with New York (product sales, an office, and a New York choice-of-law clause) and later asserted a defamation allegation tied to New York.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to vacate partial default judgment | District court lacked power to revisit default judgment absent a Rule 60(b) motion | The partial default was non-final because damages remained unresolved, so the court could alter it | Court: Vacatur permissible — the partial default was non-final under Rule 54(b) and not certified as final |
| General personal jurisdiction | New York contacts (sales, office, alleged agency/affiliates) made defendants "at home" in NY | Contacts insufficient; defendants not incorporated or principal place of business in NY; agency/affiliate theory insufficient post-Daimler | Court: No general jurisdiction — Daimler confines general jurisdiction to paradigm cases (incorporation or principal place of business) |
| Specific personal jurisdiction under NY long-arm §302 | New York business activities and choice-of-law clause support jurisdiction; one transaction suffices | Plaintiff's claims do not arise from NY activities; choice-of-law is insufficient; in-forum sales unrelated to employment/termination claim | Court: No specific jurisdiction — plaintiff's tort/contract claims arose from conduct in Oman and not sufficiently tied to NY activities |
| Tort/defamation basis for jurisdiction | Board member Farley defamed Hood in NY, creating §302(a)(2)-(3) basis | Plaintiff failed to allege or support where the alleged defamation occurred; defamation claims excluded from §§302(a)(2)-(3) scope | Court: No jurisdiction on this ground — allegations were untimely/unsupported and defamation is exempt from those long-arm provisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Swarna v. Al-Awadi, 622 F.3d 123 (2d Cir.) (orders leaving damages unresolved are non-final and subject to alteration)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S.) (general jurisdiction exists only where corporation is essentially at home—paradigm: incorporation or principal place of business)
- Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 814 F.3d 619 (2d Cir.) (distinguishes general vs. specific jurisdiction and applies Daimler)
- Sonera Holding B.V. v. Cukurova Holding A.S., 750 F.3d 221 (2d Cir.) (substantial, continuous, systematic contacts do not necessarily permit general jurisdiction)
- City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114 (2d Cir.) (court may raise personal jurisdiction sua sponte where defendant has not appeared or consented)
- Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir.) (sections 302(a)(2) and (3) of NY CPLR exclude defamation claims from their scope)