994 F. Supp. 2d 135
D.D.C.2014Background
- Plaintiff Anthony Lopes alleges assault and battery at Lotus Lounge DC arising from security-guard conduct during a service visit for Lopes’ ATM.
- Defendants JetSetDC, LLC; Corey Moxey; and Mark Spain move to dismiss on jurisdiction, service, and merits grounds.
- Plaintiff pleads causes of action including assault, battery, negligence, negligent hiring/retention, negligent supervision, respondeat superior/agency, and defamation.
- Plaintiff asserts complete diversity and that Spain is an officer/alter ego of JetSetDC for purposes of service and jurisdiction.
- Court denies the motion to dismiss, finding subject matter jurisdiction exists, service adequate, personal jurisdiction over Spain proper, and Plaintiff pleads plausible claims under the alter ego theory.
- The opinion applies District of Columbia choice-of-law and veil-piercing standards to determine liability of individuals associated with an LLC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction. | Lopes asserts diversity jurisdiction with complete diversity. | Defendants contend lack of citizenship clarity for LLC members. | Subject matter jurisdiction exists; complete diversity shown. |
| Whether there is personal jurisdiction over Spain. | Spain is an officer/alter ego and served within DC. | Service improper; Spain not authorized recipient. | Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Spain; service valid. |
| Whether service of process was sufficient for JetSetDC, Spain, and Moxey. | Affidavits show proper service. | Service to Spain defective as not to corporate agent. | Service of process sufficient for all named defendants. |
| Whether plaintiff states a claim under alter ego/veil-piercing against Spain and Moxey. | Spain/Moxey are alter egos; piercing warranted. | Veil-piercing issues require rigorous showing. | Plaintiff’s pleadings survive 12(b)(6) for alter ego. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (establishes burden to show jurisdiction; presumes lack of jurisdiction absent proof)
- McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1936) (burden on party asserting jurisdiction; procedural posture for jurisdictional challenges)
- Bernard v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 362 F. Supp. 2d 272 (D.D.C. 2005) (cites authority on jurisdictional standards (diversity/context))
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (establishes minimum contacts and due process in jurisdiction)
- GTE New Media Servs. v. BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (framework for evaluating personal jurisdiction in DC Circuit)
- Diamond Chem. Co. v. Atofina Chems., Inc., 268 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2003) (liberal discovery standard for jurisdictional questions)
- Caribbean Broad. Sys., v. Cable & Wireless PLC, 148 F.3d 1080 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (standard for jurisdictional discovery and piercing veil context)
- Amore v. Accor N. Am. Inc., 529 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2008) (veil-piercing doctrines under DC Maryland interplay)
- Ruffin v. New Destination, LLC, 773 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 2010) (veil-piercing factors and equity-based approach)