835 F. Supp. 2d 449
N.D. Ohio2011Background
- SST (SuiteSolutions Technologies) is an Ohio company providing internet/video services; Cahaba Lakes is an Alabama multi-dwelling property formerly owned by JRC Hunters Pointe (Illinois) and now owned by Wilkinson Group (Georgia).
- SST had an Installation and Service Agreement granting exclusive rights to install and maintain equipment on Cahaba Lakes, to be binding on future owners (covenants running with the land).
- JRC conveyed the property to Wilkinson Group via deed in lieu; Wilkinson Group was given a copy of the Agreement and later sought to negotiate a non-exclusive arrangement.
- The deed in lieu and the prior owner’s covenant led Wilkinson Group to argue the Agreement was extinguished or not applicable to it, prompting SST to sue in October 2011 for breach, tortious interference with contract, and interference with business relations.
- The court granted a TRO, then, in the discussion, held the case’s transfer to the Northern District of Alabama is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) due to issues on personal jurisdiction and forum considerations.
- The decision ultimately grants the defendant’s motion for transfer to the Northern District of Alabama.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio long-arm jurisdiction can reach Wilkinson Group and BBCG | SST argues defendants transacted business in Ohio via email and negotiations. | Defendants deny ongoing business or obligations; Agreement not binding on Wilkinson. | Transfer appropriate; scheduling jurisdiction not clearly established. |
| Whether due process permits specific jurisdiction over tort claims | Defendants knew they harmed SST in Ohio; torts arise from alleged interference. | No ongoing contractual relation; mere contract existence insufficient for jurisdiction. | Jurisdiction may apply to tort claim; subject to transfer due to overall jurisdiction questions. |
| Whether the case should be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) | Venue and jurisdiction issues warrant transfer to a forum with Alabama witnesses and law. | Lack of jurisdiction argues for dismissal or transfer to Alabama. | Transfer to the Northern District of Alabama granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- PTG Logistics, LLC v. Bickel's Snack Foods, Inc., 196 F.Supp.2d 593 (S.D. Ohio 2002) (jurisdiction based on ongoing transactions; distinguish Hanover Foods split)
- Reynolds v. Intl. Amateur Athletic Federation, 841 F.Supp. 1444 (S.D. Ohio 1992) (ongoing relationship and funding can establish jurisdiction)
- Calphalon Corp. v. Rowlette, 228 F.3d 718 (6th Cir.2000) (contract alone is not sufficient for specific jurisdiction)
- Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Industries, 401 F.2d 374 (6th Cir.1968) (concerted effects in forum can support jurisdiction)
- Kentucky Oaks Mall Co. v. Mitchell’s Formal Wear, Inc., 53 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 1990) (expansive interpretation of ‘transact’ under long-arm statute)
- U.S. v. Botefuhr, 309 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir.2002) (pendent personal jurisdiction concept for related claims)