Winner v. Tryko Partners, LLC
333 F. Supp. 3d 250
W.D.N.Y.2018Background
- Plaintiff Alexandra Cimino Winner, a Rochester, NY resident, was hired as Director of Marketing by Tryko Partners, LLC (NJ) in March 2016 and worked primarily from home in New York until her termination in November 2016.
- Offer letter contemplated she would continue to live and work in Rochester; defendant provided a company laptop and sent/participated in meetings and vendor interactions in New York.
- Plaintiff alleges sex-based discrimination and a hostile work environment by supervisors (including being excluded from NJ office, sexist remarks, and pressured to delay personal plans) and that complaints were ignored, culminating in termination and replacement.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) (lack of personal jurisdiction), 12(b)(5) (improper service), and 12(b)(3)/28 U.S.C. §1406(a) (improper venue); alternatively sought transfer to D.N.J. under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a).
- The court resolved the motion on the pleadings and affidavits (no evidentiary hearing) and credited plaintiff's jurisdictional factual allegations at the pre-discovery stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction (NY long-arm §302(a)(1)) | Tryko hired and directed her to work from NY, provided equipment, arranged NY meetings; claims arise from that relationship | Tryko has no NY offices/employees, disputes it was plaintiff's employer, argues contacts insufficient | Court: §302(a)(1) satisfied at prima facie stage; Tryko transacted business in NY and claims relate to those contacts; jurisdiction permitted |
| Due process / minimum contacts & reasonableness | Contacts (employment, communications, NY meetings) foresee NY litigation; burden on defendant not compelling | Defendant argues insufficient purposeful availment; asserts unfairness | Court: minimum contacts present for specific jurisdiction; reasonableness factors do not defeat jurisdiction |
| Service of process (Rule 12(b)(5)) | Service on NY Secretary of State valid if defendant subject to NY jurisdiction | Service improper if no NY jurisdiction | Court: service argument contingent on lack of jurisdiction; because court found jurisdiction, service challenge rejected |
| Venue (Title VII §2000e-5(f)(3)) and transfer (§1404) | Venue proper in Western District because plaintiff worked (and would have continued to work) in Rochester, NY | Defendant cites general venue statute and seeks transfer to D.N.J.; contends records/contacts in NJ | Court: Title VII venue provision controls; venue proper in W.D.N.Y.; transfer denied—defendant failed to make strong showing to overcome plaintiff's chosen forum |
Key Cases Cited
- Chloé v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2010) (framework for specific jurisdiction and relatedness/nexus inquiry)
- Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 732 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2013) (relatedness test for CPLR §302 and specific jurisdiction)
- Dorchester Fin. Sec., Inc. v. Banco BRJ, S.A., 722 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2013) (procedural standards for resolving pre-discovery personal jurisdiction motions)
- Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007) (transaction of business and nexus analysis under CPLR §302)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment and foreseeability for due process analysis)