Thackurdeen v. Duke Univ.
130 F. Supp. 3d 792
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Duke and OTS, North Carolina-based educational/nonprofit entities, were sued by Ravi Thackurdeen’s parents for negligence and IIED arising from events in Costa Rica during an OTS program.
- Plaintiffs allege delay in notifying parents, inadequate searches, and posting celebratory events after Ravi’s drowning.
- Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Defendants move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Jurisdictional discovery occurred Jan 23–Feb 28, 2015, informing the court on Duke’s and OTS’s contacts with New York.
- Court evaluates whether section 301 (general) or CPLR § 302 (specific) provides jurisdiction; plaintiffs fail to show general or specific jurisdiction.
- Court treats Duke and OTS as separate entities for purposes of the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has general jurisdiction over Duke | Plaintiffs argue Duke is at home via extensive NY ties | Duke has no NY incorporation, real property, offices, or pervasive NY presence | No general jurisdiction over Duke |
| Whether the court has general jurisdiction over OTS | OTS’s NY-related activities render it at home in NY | OTS is NC-incorporated with no NY principal place of business | No general jurisdiction over OTS |
| Whether 302(a)(1) arises from NY contracts for NY-based New York contact | New York contracts linked to Ravi’s attendance establish arising from NY activities | Contracts were a prelude but claims are about Costa Rica events; not arising from NY contract | Section 302(a)(1) does not provide jurisdiction |
| Whether 302(a)(2) (tortious acts within NY) applies | At least one NY-directed act (Riley’s call) caused injury in NY | Torts primarily occurred in Costa Rica; NY call insufficient for jurisdiction | No jurisdiction under 302(a)(2) per strict/majority rule; injuries not committed in NY |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (limits general jurisdiction to essentially at-home corporations)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (establishes 'at home' standard for general jurisdiction)
- Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007) (arising from NY contacts requires relatedness, not mere causation)
- Gelfand v. Tanner Motor Tours, Ltd., 339 F.2d 317 (2d Cir. 1964) (NY contract alone not enough to arise from in-state transaction)
- Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779 (2d Cir. 1999) (requires physical tort or act within NY for §302(a)(2))
- Fox v. Boucher, 794 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1986) (single phone call into NY generally insufficient for jurisdiction)