Skrodzki v. Marcello
810 F. Supp. 2d 501
E.D.N.Y2011Background
- Szrodzki, a New York resident, bought a crane from Mitchell Crane entities for delivery to Poland.
- Purchase was a one-time contract; negotiations occurred via email/phone from Mississippi and New York.
- Plaintiff paid $96,500 total for the crane, parts, and shipping; shipping to Poland arranged by Defendants.
- Crane delivery failed; Mitchell Crane retained the crane and purchase price; only shipping costs were refunded.
- Mississippi state court action by Mitchell Crane against USSI and Knightbridge in 2010 concerning ownership and storage costs.
- This federal action, filed Nov. 9, 2010, asserts breach of contract, unjust enrichment, seller’s breach, deceit, and promissory estoppel; Defendants move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (12(b)(2)).
- Court granted motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and declined to address remaining arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General jurisdiction under CPLR 301 | Szrodzki relied on NY contacts and New York residency. | Defendants lack continuous and systematic contacts in New York. | No general jurisdiction under CPLR 301. |
| Specific jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1) | Transacted business in NY via contract and website solicitations. | Contract performed outside NY; websites are passive or non-centering; no center of gravity in NY. | No jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1) (insufficient NY transacting of business). |
| Jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(3) | Publication of websites caused NY consequences; deceit alleged. | Breach of contract cannot ground tort-based jurisdiction; deceit not collateral to contract. | No colorable tort basis; 302(a)(3) not satisfied. |
| Transfer or jurisdictional discovery | Court declines transfer/ discovery; grants 12(b)(2) dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sole Resort, S.A. de C.V. v. Allure Resorts Mgmt., LLC, 450 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2006) (articulable nexus required for 302(a)(1) and center of gravity concepts)
- Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007) (purposeful availment and transaction in New York)
- Parke-Bernet Galleries v. Franklyn, 26 N.Y.2d 13 (1958) (interactive open bidding over telephone; jurisdiction context)
- Ehrlich-Bober & Co. v. University of Houston, 49 N.Y.2d 574 (1980) (factors for website-based jurisdiction with NY-centered activity)
- Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. v. Montana Board of Investments, 21 A.D.3d 90 (1st Dep’t 2005) (out-of-state entity engaging in NY-centered transactions via electronic means)
- Kulas v. Adachi, 1997 WL 256957 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (fraud-based jurisdictional necessity)
- Grimaldi v. Guinn, 72 A.D.3d 37 (2d Dep’t 2010) (ongoing relationship; center of gravity analysis)
- Maranga v. Vira, 386 F.Supp.2d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (communications into NY may support jurisdiction if center of gravity in NY)