Saks v. Andreu, Palma, Lavin, & Solis, PLLC
1:24-cv-02045
| E.D.N.Y | Jan 28, 2025Background
- Chaya-Sarah Saks sued Andreu, Palma, Lavin & Solis, PLLC (APLS), a Florida law firm, and Midland Credit Management (MCM), a debt collector, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
- The suit stemmed from MCM and APLS filing a debt collection action against Saks in Palm Beach County, Florida, even though Saks claimed she resided in New York and did not execute the debt agreement in Florida.
- Saks alleged that the filing in Florida with false venue representation was intended to restrict her ability to contest the suit and caused her emotional distress.
- APLS moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), arguing it had no meaningful ties to New York.
- The court addressed whether it had either general or specific personal jurisdiction over APLS in New York as required by New York law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General jurisdiction over APLS | APLS derived revenue from NY debt collections and maintained a website accessible to NY residents | APLS is incorporated and based in Florida, has no offices or substantial permanent business in NY | No general jurisdiction; APLS is not at home in NY |
| Specific jurisdiction under C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1) | MCM does business in NY and APLS acts as MCM’s agent | Plaintiff did not show APLS transacted any business in NY or controlled MCM’s actions in NY | No specific jurisdiction; APLS’s actions arose outside NY |
| Specific jurisdiction under C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(3) | Filing Florida suit caused injury in NY due to Saks’s residence | Any injury occurred in Florida, not NY | No jurisdiction; situs of injury was Florida |
| Website as a jurisdictional contact | Website accessible and allows NY payments | Accessibility alone does not create jurisdiction | No jurisdictional effect from website |
Key Cases Cited
- Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc. v. Am. Buddha, 609 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing plaintiff's burden in Rule 12(b)(2) personal jurisdiction motions)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (defining limits of general jurisdiction for corporate defendants)
- Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779 (2d Cir. 1999) (evaluating when law firm representation constitutes transacting business for jurisdiction)
- Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 814 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 2016) (articulating general versus specific jurisdiction standards)
- Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 732 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2013) (establishing requirements for specific jurisdiction under NY law)