Thackurdeen v. Duke University
660 F. App'x 43
2d Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Roshni and Raj Thackurdeen (New York residents) sued Duke University and the Organization for Tropical Studies (OTS) after their son, Ravi, drowned while participating in an OTS/Duke–sponsored study‑abroad program in Costa Rica.
- Claims pleaded included negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from events in Costa Rica and post‑event communications.
- Plaintiffs filed in the Southern District of New York; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Jurisdictional discovery was conducted; the district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and did not transfer the case.
- On appeal the Second Circuit reviewed de novo, treated Duke and OTS as separate entities, affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, and transferred the case to the Middle District of North Carolina.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General jurisdiction (CPLR §301 / due process) | Duke/OTS are subject to general jurisdiction in NY because of substantial connections and activities directed to NY residents | Neither defendant is "at home" in NY; due process limits general jurisdiction to domicile or place of incorporation/principal place of business | No general jurisdiction: plaintiffs did not show defendants were "at home" in NY; Daimler controllo applies |
| Specific jurisdiction §302(a)(1) (transacting business) | Sending program materials and contracting with New York residents constitutes transacting business in NY and the claims arise from that business | Contacts were insufficient; injuries occurred outside NY and do not arise from mere advertising/contracting in NY | Even assuming transacting business, plaintiffs’ claims do not arise from that NY activity — out‑of‑state injury claims advertised/contracted in NY are insufficient |
| Specific jurisdiction §302(a)(2) (tortious act within NY) | Tortious infliction of emotional distress occurred in NY via phone calls to plaintiffs’ NY home | Tortious act occurred outside NY; §302(a)(2) requires defendant’s physical presence in NY | No §302(a)(2) jurisdiction: Second Circuit follows precedent requiring defendant’s physical presence in NY |
| Specific jurisdiction §302(a)(3) (tortious act outside NY causing in‑state injury) | Defendants should have expected consequences in NY and derive substantial revenue; injury was felt in NY | The original events causing injury occurred outside NY (Costa Rica); situs‑of‑injury is where causal event occurred | No §302(a)(3) jurisdiction: situs of original injurious event was outside NY, so §302(a)(3) does not support jurisdiction |
| Transfer to proper forum | If SDNY lacks jurisdiction, case should be transferred to Middle District of North Carolina (where defendants concede jurisdiction) | Defendants did not oppose transfer; no district‑court request from plaintiffs but transfer may be appropriate | Court exercised authority to transfer in interest of justice and sent case to Middle District of North Carolina |
Key Cases Cited
- Porina v. Marward Shipping Co., 521 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008) (de novo review of personal jurisdiction dismissals)
- Grand River Enters. Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, 425 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2005) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
- Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779 (2d Cir. 1999) (physical presence requirement for §302(a)(2))
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (general jurisdiction limited to where corporation is "at home")
- Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li, 768 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2014) (application of Daimler in Second Circuit)
- Whitaker v. American Telecasting, Inc., 261 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2001) (situs‑of‑injury test for §302(a)(3))
- DiStefano v. Carozzi North America, Inc., 286 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2001) (injury must have occurred in NY for §302(a)(3))
- Minnette v. Time Warner, 997 F.2d 1023 (2d Cir. 1993) (Second Circuit authority to transfer in interest of justice)
- Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 126 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 1997) (discussing New York law on §302(a)(2) and physical presence)