846 F. Supp. 2d 18
D.D.C.2012Background
- Khatib seeks a preliminary injunction to enjoin a scheduled foreclosure sale of Virginia real property.
- Alliance Bankshares is the Virginia parent company of Alliance Bank; the foreclosure involves the property secured by a deed of trust.
- The action includes FHA/ECOA claims and state-law fraud/negligence claims; class certification has not been sought.
- Foreclosure sale was scheduled for March 5, 2012; the court consolidated TRO with a preliminary injunction proceeding.
- The court must determine whether it has personal jurisdiction over Alliance Bankshares to issue relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has general jurisdiction over Alliance Bankshares. | Khatib asserts continuous and systematic DC contacts. | Alliance Bankshares has no meaningful DC presence. | No general jurisdiction over Alliance Bankshares. |
| Whether the court has specific jurisdiction over Alliance Bankshares relating to the claims. | Khatib argues DC nexus through ECOA/FHA claims. | Alliance Bankshares lacks tie to DC claims; transactions occur in Virginia. | No specific jurisdiction over Alliance Bankshares. |
| Whether Alliance Bank’s contacts can be imputed to Alliance Bankshares. | Alliance Bank’s contacts should be attributed to parent. | Presumption of separateness; no agency/alter ego shown. | No imputation; no basis to anchor jurisdiction. |
| Whether the case should be transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia. | (Not explicitly argued for transfer in active briefing.) | Transfer to ED Va would provide stronger jurisdiction. | Court may transfer if consent or motion to dismiss; not dismissed now. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Dunlop Tire Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) (standard for general jurisdiction; continuous and systematic contacts required)
- Doe v. United States, 797 F. Supp. 2d 78 (D.D.C. 2011) (agency/alter ego can impute contacts only in appropriate circumstances)
- Diamond Chem. Co., Inc. v. Atofina Chems., Inc., 268 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2003) (affiliate/holding-company imputation generally improper; separate entities)
- Gallagher v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 781 F. Supp. 1079 (E.D. Pa. 1992) (holding company/alter ego considerations; veil-piercing standard)
- In re Baan Secs. Litig., 245 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D.D.C. 2003) (special circumstances for imputing subsidiary contacts to parent)