Lyons v. Rienzi & Sons, Inc.
856 F. Supp. 2d 501
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Nuvolari-Lenard S.R.L. designs yachts from Italy; Brianna designed in Italy, manufactured in Wisconsin, sold in New York
- Lyons and Rienzi sued for injuries on the Brianna; Rienzi impleaded Nuvolari under Rule 14
- Nuvolari moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction after jurisdictional discovery
- Court granted Nuvolari’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion; no general or specific NY jurisdiction established
- Nuvolari had minimal contacts with the U.S.; no U.S. accounts or agents; Facebook page accessible to U.S. users
- Nuvolari’s authorship of yacht designs generated limited revenue and no NY-anchored operations; focus on forum-state contacts and due process
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nuvolari has general jurisdiction in New York | Lyons argues continuous NY presence via activities | Nuvolari has no NY presence or systemic activity | No general jurisdiction under §301 |
| Whether NY CPLR §302(a)(1) supports jurisdiction | Transacted business in NY via sale or design expectations | No NY transactions by Nuvolari; no agent in NY | No jurisdiction under §302(a)(1) |
| Whether NY CPLR §302(a)(2) or (a)(3) supports jurisdiction | Tortious acts in NY or consequences therefrom | Tortious acts occurred in Italy; no NY consequences | No jurisdiction under §302(a)(2) or (a)(3) |
| Whether Rule 4(k)(2) permits federal jurisdiction | Not asserted; potential federal jurisdiction | Rule 4(k)(2) not applicable; due process issues persist | Rule 4(k)(2) inapplicable; no constitutional basis |
| Whether due process limits prevent jurisdiction over Nuvolari | Attempts to bring through NY law | Nuvolari lacked purposefully availing the forum | Due process bars jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560 (2d Cir.1996) (plaintiff bears burden on 12(b)(2))
- Chaiken v. W Publ’g Corp., 119 F.3d 1018 (2d Cir.1997) (jurisdictional discovery standard)
- Landoil Res. Corp. v. Alexander & Alexander Sews., Inc., 918 F.2d 1039 (2d Cir.1990) (burden after discovery depends on context)
- Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir.2007) (totality of defendant’s NY activities key to §302(a)(1))
- Bensusan Rest. Corp. v. King, 126 F.3d 25 (2d Cir.1997) (§302(a)(2) torts require NY act by defendant; acts in NY)
- McGowan v. Smith, 52 N.Y.2d 268, 437 N.Y.S.2d 643, 419 N.E.2d 321 (N.Y.1981) (§302(a)(3) requires economic contact with NY/consequences in NY)
- J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011) (purposeful availment and respect for territorial limits)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (reasonableness factors in due process analysis)
- Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.2000) (two-part due process inquiry: minimum contacts and reasonableness)
- Dardana Ltd. v. A.O. Yuganskneftegaz, 317 F.3d 202 (2d Cir.2003) (Rule 4(k)(2) requires federal claim and no state jurisdiction)
- Porina v. Marward Shipping Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 122 (2d Cir.2008) (Rule 4(k)(2) framework for federal jurisdiction)