Pinpoint IT Services, L.L.C. v. Atlas IT Export Corp.
812 F. Supp. 2d 710
E.D. Va.2011Background
- Pinpoint IT Services sues Atlas IT Export Corp. for contract relation, alleging breach and seeking injunctive relief and non-liability.
- Atlas, a Puerto Rico corporation, contracted to provide IT services to AHM via Pinpoint with offshore staffing considerations.
- Plaintiff claims Atlas failed to hire 45 consultants by a target date and breached deadlines, increasing costs.
- Plaintiff terminated the contract for cause on March 25, 2010; Atlas disputed termination and later claimed damages.
- Plaintiff filed the action on October 18, 2010; Atlas failed to answer, prompting entry of default on December 16, 2010.
- Atlas sought to set aside default and transfer venue to the District of Puerto Rico; Plaintiff moved to strike Atlas’s opposition and for default judgment on Counts I and III.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Atlas | Pinpoint argues Virginia long-arm statute applies and due process is satisfied. | Atlas contends lack of sufficient contacts; venue should shift to Puerto Rico. | Court finds prima facie jurisdiction over Atlas in Virginia. |
| Whether venue should be transferred to Puerto Rico | Virginia is proper and convenient; transfer would disrupt plaintiff forum choice. | Puerto Rico is proper forum; balance of factors favors transfer. | Court denies transfer; Virginia venue remains. |
| Whether Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Atlas’s Opposition should be granted | Atlas filed late without leave, violating local rules. | Opposition was timely and meritorious defense may exist. | Court grants strike of Atlas’s opposition as untimely. |
| Whether Atlas’s default should be set aside | No good cause; default should stand for procedural fault. | Meritorious defenses exist; prompt response; no prejudice; other factors favor relief. | Court grants set aside of default; case proceeds on merits. |
| Whether Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief should be granted | New information undermines Atlas’s representations; supplemental brief warranted. | New info does not affect the set-aside decision. | Court denies leave to file supplemental brief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Geometric Ltd. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 561 F.3d 273 (4th Cir. 2009) (two-part and three-part tests for personal jurisdiction)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Supreme Court 1945) (minimum contacts and due process standard)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful direction and relatedness for jurisdiction)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1964) (transfer of venue under 1404(a) and transfer to proper forum)
- Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673 (4th Cir. 1989) (prima facie jurisdiction showing and pleading standards)