NYKCool A.B. v. Pacific International Services, Inc.
66 F. Supp. 3d 385
| S.D.N.Y. | 2014Background
- NYKCool seeks a default judgment of $6,956,036.17 against Noboa after assets of his affiliated companies were allegedly shifted to avoid judgment.
- Noboa moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and argues service of process was insufficient; NYKCool also opposes the dismissal.
- NYKCool attempted service on Noboa via email to a Foundation-connected address; the Foundation says it never received documents and its website disclaimer casts doubt on notice.
- Service on Truisfruit was ordered to a in-country Ecuador address; FedEx delivery of the amended complaint failed to reach Noboa.
- The R&R splits: email service under Rule 4(f)(3) could be adequate, but amended-complaint service via FedEx was insufficient; Noboa objects.
- Court ultimately finds email service insufficient, quashes the attempted FedEx service to the incorrect address, and allows service by email on Noboa’s attorneys; addresses jurisdiction separately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of service of process | NYKCool argues Rule 4(f)(3) allows email service in this context. | Noboa contends email service and other attempted service were insufficient to notify him. | Email service insufficient; FedEx service to incorrect address also insufficient; alternative service allowed. |
| Personal jurisdiction via alter ego | NYKCool asserts alter ego control over Noboa's companies supports general jurisdiction in New York. | Noboa argues alter ego jurisdiction under Daimler is improper or insufficiently pled. | Alter ego theory potentially supports jurisdiction; Daimler does not foreclose alter ego theory; not foreclosing at this stage. |
| Default judgment viability | NYKCool should be entitled to a default judgment based on the pleadings and evidence. | Noboa argues lack of service and/or lack of jurisdiction defeats default judgment. | Default judgment denied without prejudice to a new motion after proper service. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) (alter ego theory not foreclosed by general-jurisdiction concerns)
- Sonera Holding B.V. v. Cukurova Holding A.S., 750 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2014) (alter ego jurisdiction narrower than agency theory; applied to jurisdiction analysis)
- Transfield ER Cape Ltd. v. Indus. Carriers, Inc., 571 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2009) (alter ego and agency in corporate-jurisdiction context)
- Ball v. Metallurgie Hoboken-Overpelt, S.A., 902 F.2d 194 (2d Cir. 1990) (portions of personal-jurisdiction analysis and corporate-control principles)
- United States v. Funds Held ex rel. Wetterer, 210 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2000) (recognizes forum-state considerations in jurisdictional analysis)