Antonio Mareno, Jr. v. Thomas Rowe and Jet Aviation of America, Inc.
910 F.2d 1043
2d Cir.
1990
Check Treatment

*2 GRAAFEILAND, Before MINER VAN ALTIMARI, Judges. Circuit ALTIMARI, Judge: Circuit Mareno, Plaintiff-appellant Antonio Jr. appeals judgment from a entered in the States for the District Court South- (Broderick, ern District of New York Judge) dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal 12(b)(2) impos- Rule of Civil Procedure $4,800 ing pursuant sanction to Federal appeal, Rule of CivilProcedure 11. On this complains that the district court incorrectly defendants-appellees held that (“JAA”) Jet Aviation of Thomas Rowe were not amenable to suit corporate pres- under either New York’s jur- long ence doctrine or New York’s arm isdiction statute. N.Y.Civ.Prac.L. & R. 1990). 301, 302(a)(3)(McKinney imposi- also that the district court’s $4,800 improper. tion of a sanction was other, from main- wholly separate each below, we affirm reasons stated For the books, employ- taining their own of Mareno’s dismissal ees, assets, operations. and business reverse the complaint, Following service of *3 BACKGROUND by JTEB on be- interposed was an answer by noted that the filed and Rowe. It an action half of itself arises from appeal This “incorrectly to District Court referred complaint [JTEB] in the United States Mareno ” York Inc.’ Mare- of New of as ‘Jet Aviation Southern District for the wrongfully dis- of default for a notation request he was no’s for claiming that responsive in violation JAA to file a job his of JAA charged from the failure by 42 U.S.C. district court. rights under was denied the pleading §§ his civil of The seq. et 2000a the and 42 U.S.C. moved to dismiss seq. et Defendants defendant-appellee alia, jurisdiction alleged for, that lack of inter acted Rowe, supervisors, of Proce- of Mareno’s Federal Rule Civil pursuant one dis- supervisor to for 12(b)(2). also moved with another Defendants in concert dure false Pro- of accusa- of Civil charge Mareno on the basis under Federal Rule sanctions performance claim of in the arguing dereliction Mareno’s cedure tions com- the in his While and employment duties. the jurisdiction, his dismiss, corporate defen- motion opposition named JAA as to defendants’ plaint employed The actually was or fact. dant, basis law Mareno was without sibling, Aviation motion corporate granted Jet defendants’ JAA’s district court against Teterboro, (“JTEB”). imposed sanctions and to dismiss the amount of attorney in Mareno and corporations is relationship of these The $4,800. JAA, corporation, Delaware á complex. corporation, conduct JTEB, Maryland a (“FBOs”) at various operations base fixed DISCUSSION country. The throughout airports matter, Mareno preliminary As a air- service for provide maintenance FBOs interposed the answer contends air- at several operates FBOs JAA craft. improper be of JAA States, behalf none JTEB on United throughout ports in his party named not a JTEB was cause York. JTEB is located of which may tech be Although Mareno complaint. airport single a FBO operates con correct, pleadings nically was Mareno Jersey, where New do “as substantial liberally so strued service technician. employed as line 8(f); see Friedlan Fed.R.Civ.P. justice.” wholly-owned subsidiar- JAA are JTEB (2d Cir. Cimino, F.2d Inc. der v. Holdings, ies of Jet curiam). obvi 1975) answer (per corporation. JHDG (“JHDG”), a Delaware point notify, and ously-intended to Air subsidiary, Executive a third owns also the court notify, Mareno and fact corporation. Delaware (“EAF”), a Fleet proper employer and the aircraft, the real JTEB was manages private EAF filed Further, the answer person- defendant. flight administrative providing evident party on behalf throughout airfields at various nel respond adequately Plains, to sue ly intended States, including the White com allegations contained ed to the York, Maintenance of Airport. Teledyne, Datskow by plaint. performed managed by EAF aircraft Boring 1298, 1301-02 competitive through a selected contractors Cir.1987), 468, 470-71 Kozakiewicz, most of work bidding process, 991, 108 S.Ct. denied, 485 U.S. Aviation, rt. com- by Butler being performed ce 1298, Therefore, the 99 L.Ed.2d not EAF does JTEB. of JAA and petitor re properly denied district court any Affidavits location. FBOs conduct against default a notation quest for clearly estab- by the defendants submitted JAA. JHDG subsidiaries the various lish

Turning principal agent department to the or basis JAA or JTEB. See AG, appeal, Delagi Volkswagenwerk that the district 29 N.Y.2d 426, 432, 895, 897, improvidently dismissed his com 278 N.E.2d 328 N.Y.S.2d (1972); Frummer, plaint personal jurisdiction over 19 N.Y.2d at for lack of 853-54, underlying ac the defendants. Where the N.E.2d at 281 N.Y.S.2d statute, Accordingly, tion is based on a federal we are to 44. there is no basis to at- apply personal jurisdiction state rules if the EAF’s York contacts to its tribute specifically provide corporate siblings. federal statute does not process. for national service of Omni Mareno further contends that the Co., Capital Int’l v. Rudolf Wolff may exercise over the 409-10, 104-05, U.S. 302(a)(3) corporate defendant under section *4 (1987); Canterbury L.Ed.2d 415 accord long Again, of New York’s arm statute. Rudkin, Ltd., Ltd. v. Lane Belts Walker 302(a)(3) disagree. requires we Section 34, (2d Cir.1989). case, 869 F.2d 40 In this demonstrate, alia, plaintiff a that inter argues Mareno the defendants are that the defendant a tortious “committ[ed] corpo suit under amenable to New York’s causing injury per act the state to without presence long rate doctrine and under its property son or within the state.” To satis arm statute. See N.Y.Civ.Prac.L. & R. fy requirement Mareno that he 301, 302(a)(3). disagree. We injured by within the state virtue of 301, entity section an is ame the fact that Under he has suffered financial loss however, to in if in injury, nable New York it is New York. An does “doing simply business” in New York so as to not occur the state within because presence establish state. Ball v. the is a resident. situs of “[T]he S.A., Metallurgie Overpelt, injury original 902 the is the location of the Hoboken — 194, (2d Cir.1990); injury, 198 event which caused the not the loca Hoffritz for Ltd., Cutlery, Amajac, damages Inc. v. 763 F.2d tion the where resultant are sub (2d Cir.1985). foreign corporation sequently plaintiff.” A 58 is felt Carte “doing 615, 616, said to be business” New York if 152 A.D.2d 543 N.Y.S.2d Parkoff (2d 1989) engages systematic Dep’t (quoting in a continuous and 719 Hermann 682, 683, Hosp., course of conduct New York. v. v. 135 A.D.2d Sharon Laufer Ostrow, 305, 309-10, (2d 1987)). Dep’t N.Y.2d 434 N.E.2d 522 55 N.Y.S.2d 583 692, 694, (1982); Thus, despite may 449 N.Y.S.2d the fact that Mareno Int’l, Inc., consequences Frummer v. Hilton 19 suffer the Hotels economic of his 533, 536, 851, 853, York, N.Y.2d firing N.E.2d New the location of the 41, 43, 923, original injury N.Y.S.2d cert. 389 U.S. event caused the Jersey. Undoubtedly, 19 L.Ed.2d 266 Nei S.Ct. New the exercise of business, personal jurisdiction ther JTEB nor JAA solicits must on a be based offices, property, holds accounts or injury bank or more direct within the state and a York; thus, employs expectation consequences individuals in New closer within presence type none factors indicative of the state than the of indirect financial Foods, Hoffritz, alleged by have been demonstrated. 763 loss Mareno. See See Fantis Co., F.2d at 58. Importing Inc. v. Standard 49 N.Y.2d 317, 326-27, 122, 126, 402 N.E.2d 425 N.Y. Equally unavailing is Mareno’s ar (1980); S.2d see also American gument presence that EAF’s in New York Welding Alloys Dy Eutectic Sales Co. v. predicate jurisdic is a exercise of Alloys Corp., tron 439 F.2d corporate tion over the defendant. EAF Cir.1971). entity exists as a discrete Rowe, performs wholly Similarly, a business function un defendant a New resident, operation light Jersey related FBOs. In conducts no who business York, only of the tenuous connection EAF in if between is amenable to suit his corporate siblings, it long and its stretches activities fall within New York’s arm imagination argue EAF again, acts as an statute. Once sec- invokes curiam). positions advanced (per to establish 302(a)(3) fails but tion attorney, faulty, however Mareno and of JTEB supervisor aas activities Rowe’s as matter law untenable injury to not so direct were in a Jersey resulted they Food, Nor as to necessitate York. Fantis the adver- type abuse 326-27, at constitute 402 N.E.2d 49 N.Y.2d designed 11 was that Rule Thus, corpo- sary system with the at 787. N.Y.S.2d 11 Advis- Fed.R.Civ.P. against. See guard defendant, properly rate Amendment; ory Note for lack Committee to dismiss the motion granted Ass’n, Indus. see also Securities jurisdiction. 785; Prod., 849 F.2d 322; Motown challenges the dis Finally, Mareno Simply put, McMahon, at 22. we 896 F.2d under of sanctions imposition trict $4,800 sanction of a the award believe Until Procedure Rule Civil Federal case failed to in this inappropriate legal party’s whether reviewed today, we York’s complexities of New recognize within “frivolous” argumentation jurisprudence. long arm stan a de novo 11 under meaning Rule Indus. Ass’n See, e.g., Securities appellees’ request dard. deny alsoWe Clarke, upon imposed appellate sanctions *5 Express, son/American 38; v. McMahon Shear Fed.R.App.P. see also Mareno. See (dis - Cir.1990) (2d 17, 21-22 Inc., F.2d at-, 896 110 S.Ct. Gell, U.S. Cooter 11 of Rule standard cussing three-tiered not demonstrated at 2461. Mareno However, Supreme Court review). faith that or manifest bad tactics vexatious - Hartmarx, Corp., v. & Gell appellate imposition Cooter prompts the usually 2461, 2447, 110 -, -, 110 S.Ct. Ba U.S. Rodriguez, Alvarez sanctions. See appellate “an (1990),held that 312, Inc., 359 F.2d Line, L.Ed.2d 898 hama Cruise apply an abuse-of-discretion should 804 (2d Chalfy 317-18 Turoff dis aspects of a reviewing all Cir.1986). (2d standard F.2d 23 Of determination.” 11 Rule court’s trict legal er recognized that course, the Court CONCLUSION court will of the part on the rors above, the set forth the reasons For at Id. discretion. an abuse constitute dismissing of the district judgment re 2460-61. Our -, 110 S.Ct. and is affirmed complaint to im decision the district view of the Rule 11 imposing judgment part of the inis present case in the pose sanctions attorney is and his against sanction standard the deferential with accordance remand- case is Accordingly, the reversed. & Gell. mandated Cooter of the modification court for ed to district argu that the doubt is no There opinion. this consistent judgment per not Mareno were presented ments a friv Nevertheless, constitute suasive. GRAAFEILAND, Judge, Circuit VAN 11 Rule purposes of position legal olous part: dissenting in part and concurring existing clear under sanction, it must the dis- colleagues that my agree I of suc chance is no there precedents dismissing the not err trict court ex- argument no reasonable cess colleagues’ my disagree with I complaint. as the law reverse tend, modify or sanc- imposition of reverse the decision Hydra Shipping Co. Int’l stands. Off why I dissent on explanation An tions. Cir.), cert. shore, Inc., F.2d that I elabo- requires issue sanctions - -, U.S. law. the facts both briefly on rate Thus, all unsuc- not L.Ed.2d he was 29, 1988 until From November or frivolous arguments legal cessful January discharged on Indus. Securities warrant Cf. “plaintiff”) (hereinafter Mareno, McMahon, Jr. 321-22; Ass’n, F.2d Teterboro, Inc. Aviation by Jet employed Prod., v. Ca Inc. 22; Motown discharge, his plaintiff’s Cir.1988) days after Five comm, However, go step I attorney, prior so much as a nod in would further and without EEOC, brought complaint this hold that the does not even state the direction grounds upon in the Southern District of New a claim of action seeking damages. million in Be- York could be based. $1.5 attorney precip- plaintiffs fore hastened so requires Rule 8 also court, he to make itately into was bound plain “a statement of the contain short inquiry ascertain that reasonable showing [plaintiff] claim that the is entitled signed prepared which he philosophy underlying to relief.” The grounded in fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. was “well plainly applicable Rule is to the instant My colleagues correctly identify plain- rights complaint case. “If a civil is to Teter- employer tiffs as Jet dismiss, survive a motion to it must make state, however, boro, They neglect to Inc. specific allegations indicating dep factual that, plaintiffs attorney if had made rea- Fonte v. Board of rights.” rivation of required by Rule he inquiry sonable as Managers Continental Towers Condo easily would have ascertained this to be the minium, (2d Cir.1988). fact. November exe- On complaint alleges Plaintiff’s that he was “AN NON-DISCLO- cuted EMPLOYEE summarily discharged on the erroneous which identified SURE AGREEMENT” jet ground improperly that he had stored a Aviation/Teterboro, (‘the Compa- “Jet plane plane too close to another so that corporation having ny’), a Delaware planes damaged both and that as a were principal place of business at Teterboro deprived rights. result he was of his civil Jersey” Airport, plain- violation, rights This does not state a civil employer. 11 certifica- tiffs Over the Rule allegations and there are no other factual attorney, plaintiffs complaint, tion stands, that do. As it *6 no reference whatever to Jet Aviation fatally is and this fact defective Inc., alleges that “between of Oliveri alone would warrant sanctions. January November Cir.1986), Thompson, [plaintiff] employed by was defendant Jet rt. 480 U.S. 107 S.Ct. ce America, Inc.” This was an 94 L.Ed.2d 689 obvious and inexcusable mistatement of Finally, significant plain- I deem it fact. attorney rejected tiff’s defendants’ plaintiffs complaint The dem- balance attempts remedy attorney’s laudable complete disregard the re- onstrates a shoddy practices. Defense council inter- quirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. Pursuant posed an answer on behalf of Jet Aviation Rule, required was Teterboro, Inc., plaintiff’s employ- actual plain “a short and statement of the contain er, stating plaintiff incorrectly had grounds upon jurisdiction America, referred to as Jet Aviation of depends.” plain- states that stipu- Inc. Defense council also offered to tiff resides in New York’s Westchester late transfer of the action from New York County employment and that his was Jersey belonged. to New where it Instead Jersey. alleges It that Jet Aviation of adopting these reasonable solutions to America, corpora- Inc. is a Massachusetts created, problems plaintiff’s had at- he operates tion which a business at Teterboro torney stubbornly along continued Airport Jersey, where wrong path he had chosen. employed, that the defendant Rowe [no Corp., Coo ter & Gell Hartmarx In specified actually a New residence but Jer- - U.S.-, 110 L.Ed.2d sey employed by Jet Aviation resident] (1990), Supreme Court stated that Airport. Inc. at the Teterboro discretion” in im district court “broad single allegation There is not a in the com- at-, Id. posing Rule sanctions. plaint justifies suit in the Southern at 2461. The Court said that abuse of agree my District of York. I S.Ct. be found if the colleagues that the district court had no such discretion would dis ruling trict court “based its on an errone- over defendants. clearly errone- law or on a ous view My the evidence.” Id. assessment

ous the dis- their review of

colleagues say that impose sanctions decision

trict court’s stan- “deferential with this

in accordance strongly dis- respectfully but I

dard.” attorney plaintiff’s conduct of

agree. The respect for complete lack of

evidenced of such condonation courts. Our

our trial encourage repetition. only

conduct will in their I exercise believe

Because sanctions, judges our district

Rule from our greater deference

deserve receiving in the Judge Broderick

than case, I dissent.

instant Fein,

Stephen and Les BLUMENTHAL

Plaintiffs-Appellants, LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER

MERRILL INC., Defendant-Appellee. SMITH, 89-9010.

No. Docket *7 Appeals, States Court Circuit.

Second 28, 1990.

Argued Feb. Aug.

Decided