Kearney v. Sharma et al
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 13 Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer Cause of Action is GRANTED. Claims against Dft Varun Sharma are DISMISSED; claims against Dft JPC Equestrian, Inc. are TRANSFERRED to United States Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Signed by Judge Jennifer B Coffman on 08/01/2011.(DAK)cc: COR,D,Jury Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
LEXINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-96-JBC
MARK EDWARD KEARNEY,
V.
PLAINTIFF,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
VARUN SHARMA and
JPC EQUESTRIAN, INC.,
DEFENDANTS.
***********
This matter is before the court on the defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in
the alternative, to transfer the action to Pennsylvania. R. 13. For the reasons
below, the court will grant the motion to dismiss for claims against Varun Sharma
and will grant the motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404.
Mark Kearney served as a sales representative for JPC Equestrian, Inc.1 The
two parties entered into a Sales Representation Agreement, which lists JPC as a
Pennsylvania corporation and gives Kearney's address as Kentucky. The Agreement
also includes a forum selection clause designating Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, as
the chosen venue for litigating any potential contract disputes. Under the Agreement,
Kearney was responsible for implementing a marketing program to sell JPC
1
Because there has not been an evidentiary hearing on the substance of
these motions, the court must consider the facts “derive[d] from the pleadings and
affidavits, taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, and without considering
Defendants‘ version of any disputed facts.” Papa John’s Int’l, Inc. v. Entm’t Mktg.
& Commc’ns Int’l, Ltd., 381 F. Supp. 2d 638, 639 (W.D. Ky. 2005) (citing Dean v.
Motel 6 Operating L.P., 134 F.3d 1269 (6th Cir. 1998)).
1
products and for making a certain amount of sales, for which he was paid a portion
of the total net payable invoices.
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or to transfer
this cause of action to Pennsylvania. Because a court cannot transfer venue unless
it has personal jurisdiction over the parties to the case, Pittock v. Otis Elevator Co.,
8 F.3d 325, 329 (6th Cir. 1993), the court will first address the defendants’
personal jurisdiction argument.
I.
Jurisdiction
This court has personal jurisdiction under Kentucky’s long-arm statute over JPC
but not over Sharma. “When a federal court sits in diversity, it may exercise personal
jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant only if a court of the forum state could do so.”
Aristech Chemical Intern. Ltd. v. Acrylic Fabricators Ltd., 138 F.3d 624, 627 (6th Cir.
1998). This court must apply Kentucky’s long-arm statute to determine personal
jurisdiction. “Because Kentucky has construed its long-arm statute to extend as far as
the Due Process Clause,” the court need only make a single inquiry. Id. (citing Wright v.
Sullivan Payne Co., 839 S.W.2d 250, 253 (Ky.1992)). While JPC is a Pennsylvania
corporation, its contacts in Kentucky include significant sales and hiring Kearney as a
sales representative specifically to increase sales in Kentucky. In April 2008, monthly
sales in Kentucky for JPC were $16,471. These commercial contacts are sufficient for
this court to assert personal jurisdiction over JPC based on Kentucky’s long-arm
statute. See Michigan National Bank v. Quality Dinette, Inc., 888 F.2d 462 (6th Cir.
1989). Kearney offers no facts, however, which would indicate Sharma had any
2
individual commercial contacts with Kentucky.
Even without such contacts, this court could assert personal jurisdiction over
Sharma if he were merely an alter ego of JPC. Estate of Thomson ex rel. Estate of
Rakestraw v. Toyota Motor Corp. Worldwide, 545 F.3d 357, 362 (6th Cir. 2008) (it is
appropriate for courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over an individual that would not
otherwise be subject to jurisdiction in that court when the individual or corporation is an
alter ego of another company that is subject to jurisdiction in the forum state). Kearney
has not shown, however, that “there is (1) ‘such a unity of ownership and interest’ that
the separate personalities of the corporation and its owner cease to exist,” Sudamax
Industria e Comercio de Cigarros, LTDA v. Buttes & Ashes, Inc., 516 F.Supp.2d 841,
847 (W.D.Ky. 2007) (quoting White v. Winchester Land Development Corp., 584
S.W.2d 56, 61–62 (Ky.App.1979)), and although he has attempted to show that “(2) ‘the
facts are such that an adherence to the normal attributes ... of separate corporate
existence would sanction a fraud or promote injustice,’” Id., he has not stated any facts
which indicate that Sharma actively participated in any such fraud or was aware of its
existence and did nothing about it. Com. ex rel. Beshear v. ABAC Pest Control, Inc.,
621 S.W.2d 705, 708 (Ky.App. 1981). Thus this court will dismiss the claims against
Sharma for lack of personal jurisdiction.
II.
Venue
This court will transfer this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because, while
venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), the Agreement between the parties
includes a valid forum selection clause. Kerobo v. Sw. Clean Fuels, Corp., 285 F.3d
3
531, 537 (6th Cir.2002). Absent a strong showing, forum selection clauses should be
upheld and Kearney has not argued that the forum selection clause is invalid. Wong v.
PartyGaming Ltd., 589 F.3d 821, 828 (6th Cir. 2009) (“The party opposing the forum
selection clause bears the burden of showing that the clause should not be enforced.”).
The action cannot be dismissed under FRCP 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)
because venue is proper. See Wong, 589 F.3d at 830 (citing Kerobo, 285 F.3d at 535);
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Therefore, this court will transfer this action to the United States
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, lies.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer (R. 13)
is GRANTED. All claims against defendant Sharma are DISMISSED. All claims against
JPC are TRANSFERRED to the United States Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.
Signed on August 1, 2011
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?