Cestari v. VIAAIR, LLC et al

Filing 32

Judge Mark L. Wolf: ENDORSED ORDER entered: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that: 1.) The attached Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 29) is ADOPTED and INCORPORATED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636. 2.) For the rea sons stated in the Report and Recommendation, Defendants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Or, In the Alternative, For Failure to State a Claim (Docket No. 12) is ALLOWED. 3.) This case is DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Franklin, Yvonne)

UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

DISTRICT

COURT

OF MASSACHUSETTS

MARK CESTARI,
Plaintiff

C.A.

V.

VIAAIR,

No.

15-13402-MLW

LLC ET AL.,

Defendants
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WOLF, D.J.

September 15, 2016

Plaintiff Mark Cestari

sued defendants ViaAir,

LLC,

Mauiva

AirExpress, LLC, Irit Vizer, and Amos Vizer in the Middlesex County
Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
removed

the

case

Massachusetts.

to

this

court.

Defendants

are

Cestari

residents

of

is

a

Defendants
resident

Florida.

of

Cestari

alleges that he had an employment contract with defendants under
which he would be paid, among other things, a salary of $7,000 per
month.

He further alleges that he worked under the contract for

five months and defendants have not paid him for his
Cestari

asserts

claims

for:

(1)

unpaid

wages

Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, §148;

services.
under

the

(2) breach

of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and

fair dealing;

(3) intentional misrepresentation; and (4) violation

of Mass.

Laws

Gen.

ch.

93A.

Defendants moved to dismiss

this

case for

jurisdiction.

Cestari opposed the motion.

Dein

a

issued

Report

and

lack of personal

Magistrate Judge Judith

Recommendation

recommending

that

defendants' motion to dismiss be allowed because Cestari had failed

to offer the evidence necessary to make a prima facie showing that
defendants

had sufficient

contacts with Massachusetts

to permit

the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over them.

No objections
filed.
an

However,

affidavit,

to

the

Report

and

Recommendation

have

been

near the deadline for objections, Cestari filed
unaccompanied

by

a

memorandum

explaining

the

implications for the motion to dismiss of the facts asserted in
the affidavit or presenting any argument as to why the court should
exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C)

to consider

additional evidence not presented to the Magistrate Judge.
28 U.S.C.

§636(b)(1)(C)

states that:

A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination
of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.
A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made
by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive
further

evidence

or

recommit

the

matter

to

the

magistrate judge with instructions.

28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C)
Procedure 72(b)(3)

(emphasis added).

Federal Rule of Civil

similarly states that:

The district judge must determine de novo any part of
the magistrate
judge's disposition that
has been
properly objected to. The district judge may accept,
reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive
further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.
As

indicated

portion of

the

earlier,

Magistrate

no

objection

Judge's

report

has

or

been

to

made

any

to

any

specified

proposed finding.
any issue ^
To

Therefore, the court is not required to consider

novq.

defeat

the

motion

to

dismiss

for

lack

of

personal

jurisdiction, Cestari is required to "produce evidence to support

[his]

jurisdictional allegation because

[he has]

the burden of

showing that the court may exercise in personam jurisdiction over
[the defendants]."

(1st Cir. 1992}.
facie

standard

burden.

Boit v. Gar-Tec Prod., Inc., 967 F.2d 671, 680

The Magistrate Judge permissibly used the prima
to

determine

whether

Cestari

See Report and Recommendation at 18

had

satisfied

(citing id.).

his

The

Magistrate Judge correctly stated that Cestari "failed to provide
an evidentiary basis for his assertion that the parties entered
into an employment contract, much less a contract for work to be
performed in [Massachusetts]."

Id.

The Cestari affidavit filed with this court is apparently an

effort to cure this deficiency.

The court recognizes that it has

the discretion to consider the information in the affidavit.

28 U.S.C.

§636(b)(l)(C);

Medical Tech.,
however,

Inc.,

528

F.R.

See

Civ.

P.

72(b)(3);

Jasty v.

Wright

F.3d 28,

31

(1st Cir.

2008).

It

is,

not appropriate to do so.

The requirement that a plaintiff submit evidence to make a

prima facie case of personal jurisdiction is well-established and
familiar.

There

is

no

argument

or

evident

reason

why

the

information included in the Cestari affidavit was not presented to
the Magistrate Judge.

Generally, "[p]arties must take before the magistrate [judge]
not only their best shots but all of their shots."

Borden v. Sec'y

of Health & Human Services, 836 F.2d 4, 6 {1st Cir. 1987)

quotation and citation omitted).

(internal

The role of the magistrate judge

is to "assume some of the burden imposed [on the district courts]

by

a

burgeoning

Electric,

promote

840

caseload."

F.2d

efficiency

circumstances,

a

985,

would

991

be

party were

Patterson

Leitch

(1st

1988).

Cir.

undermined
allowed

to

if,

v.

Massachusetts
This

absent

alter

its

effort

to

compelling

arguments

evidence after failing to persuade the magistrate judge.

Id.

or

As

indicated earlier, there is no apparent reason why the information
in

the

Cestari

affidavit

Magistrate Judge.

could

In addition,

not

have

been

presented to

the

that information does not appear

to this court to be material to the merits of the motion to dismiss.

Therefore, the court is exercising its discretion to not consider
the

information in the Cestari affidavit.

The

court has

carefully considered the

submissions of the

parties to the Magistrate Judge and her Report and Recommendation.

The Report and Recommendation is thorough and persuasive.
therefore,

being adopted.

In view of the foregoing,

it is hereby ORDERED that:

It is,

1.

The

Recommendation

attached
(Docket

Magistrate
No.

29)

is

Judge's
ADOPTED

Report

and

and

INCORPORATED

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636.

2.

For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation,

Defendants'

Motion to Dismiss

Or,

In The Alternative,

12)

for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction,

is ALLOWED.

3.

This

case

For Failure to State A Claim (Docket No.

is

DISMISSED

for

lack

of

personal

jurisdiction.

nMTrnrr\Vcrn7\nr>Tro
UNITED^STATES

nTCfrDTnT
Tnr
jdgeK
DISTRICT JUDG

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

MARK CESTARI,

Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION

NO. 15-13402-MLW

VIAAIR, LLC, MAUIVA AIREXPRESS, LLC,
IRIT VIZER, and AMOS VIZER,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION OR. ALTERNATIVELY. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
August 30, 2016
DEIN, U.S.M.J.
I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Mark Cestari {"Cestari"), a resident of Massachusetts, has brought this action

against two out-of-state limited liability companies, ViaAir, LLC ("ViaAir") and Mauiva

AirExpress, LLC ("Mauiva AirExpress"), and the owners and operators ofthe two companies, Irit
and Amos Vizer. Cestari claims that the defendants failed to compensate him for five months

ofwork that he performed pursuant to the terms ofan employment contract under which the
plaintiff agreed to serve as the Executive Vice President of Mauiva AirExpress andthe defen
dants agreed to pay him a salary of$7,000 per month plus ten percent ofthe business's net

profits. By his Amended Complaint, Cestari has asserted claims against each ofthe defendants
for unpaid wages in violation ofthe Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148,

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29 Filed 08/30/16 Page 2 of 22

breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, inten
tional misrepresentation and violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A.
The matter is before the court on the "Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

Personal Jurisdiction, or, in the Alternative, for Failure to State a Claim" (Docket No. 12). By
their motion, the defendants contend that all of Cestari's claims against them must be

dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) because they lack sufficient contacts with

Massachusetts to supportthis court's exercise of personal jurisdiction overthem. Alternatively,

they contend that Cestari has failed to state a claim against them under any legal theory, and
that his complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons
described below, this court finds that the plaintiff has failed to make the showing necessary to

subjectthe defendants to personal jurisdiction in Massachusetts. Therefore, this court
recommendsto the District Judge to whomthis case is assigned that the defendants' motion to
dismiss be ALLOWED, and that this matter be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
II.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Standard of Review of Record

"On a motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiffultimately bears

the burden of persuading the court that jurisdiction exists." Astro-Med. Inc. v. Nihon Kohden
Am.. Inc.. 591 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2009), and cases cited. "When a district court rules on a motion

to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without holding an evidentiary hearing, as inthis

case, the 'prima facie' standard governs itsdetermination." United States v. Swiss Am. Bank.
Ltd.. 274 F.3d 610, 618(1st Cir. 2001). Under this standard, the plaintiff must "demonstrate the
existence of every fact required to satisfyboth the forum's long-arm statute and the Due

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29 Filed 08/30/16 Page 3 of 22

Process Clause of the Constitution." Id (quotations and citation omitted). Thus, in order to

meet his burden in this case, Cestari must "proffer evidence which, taken at face value, suffices

to show all facts essential to personal jurisdiction." Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC v. Alpenrose

Dairv. Inc.. 825 F.Sd 28, 34 (1st Cir. 2016). The court will "takethe facts from the pleadings and
whateversupplemental filings (such as affidavits) are contained in the record, giving credence

to the plaintiff's version of genuinely contested facts." ]d Itwill "then add to the mix facts put
forward by the defendants, to the extent that they are uncontradicted." N. Laminate Sales. Inc.
V. Davis. 403 F.3d 14, 24 (1st Cir. 2005) (quoting Davnard v. Ness. Motlev. Loadholt, Richardson
& Poole. P.A.. 290 F.3d 42, 51 (1st Cir. 2002)) (additional quotations and citationomitted).
Even under the "relatively relaxed prima facie standard," however, the plaintiff "must

verify the facts alleged through materials ofevidentiary quality." Barrett v. Lombardi. 239 F.3d
23, 27 (1st Cir. 2001). Thus, "plaintiffs may not rely on unsupported allegations in their

pleadings to make a primafacie showing ofpersonal jurisdiction." Boit v. Gar-Tec Prods.. Inc.,
967 F.2d 671, 675 (1st Cir. 1992). Similarly, "allegations in a lawyer's briefor legal memoran

dum are insufficient... to establish jurisdictional facts." Barrett. 239 F.3d at 27. As detailed

below, in the instant case the plaintiff is relying only on allegations in an unverified Amended
Complaint, while the defendants have submitted affidavits expressly refuting key allegations in
the Amended Complaint.^ The absence of "properly documented evidentiary proffers" compels
this court to recommend that the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction

^ The facts are derived from the following materials: (1) the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl.") (Docket

No. 8); (2) the Affidavit ofAmos Vizer ("A. Vizer Aff."), which is attached as Exhibit Ato the defendants' Memoran
dum ofLaw in support oftheir motion to dismiss (Docket No. 13); and (3) the Affidavit ofIrit Vizer ("I. Vizer Aff. ),
which is attached as Exhibit B to the defendants' Memorandum of Law.

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29 Filed 08/30/16 Page 4 of 22

be allowed. Killion v. Commonwealth Yachts. 421 F. Supp. 2d 246, 252 (D. Mass. 2006) (internal
punctuation and citation omitted).
The Defendants

Defendant ViaAir is a Florida limited liability company with a principal place of business

in Maitland; Florida. (A. Vizer Aff. H5). It is an indirect air carrier company, which operates

together with directair carriers to provide airtransportation services, (jd H4). At all times
relevant to the instant action, ViaAir was operating under its former name, Mauiva, LLC

("Mauiva"). (See Am. Compl. HH 2,57-58).
ViaAir has no offices outside of Maitland, Florida, and has never maintained an office or

registered agent in Massachusetts. (A. Vizer Aff. HH 5-6; I. Vizer Aff. HH 5-6). It has never
owned any real property in Massachusetts, has never maintained a telephone numberor

mailing address here, and has never opened a bank account in the Commonwealth. (A. Vizer
Aff. II 6; i. Vizer Aff. H6). In addition, ViaAir has never advertised directly to Massachusetts

residents or derived any revenue from Massachusetts, and the defendants expressly denythat
the company has ever had any business connection with Massachusetts, (id).
Defendant Amos Vizer, a resident of Florida, is the Chairman of ViaAir, and hiswife, Irit

Vizer, serves as the company's Manager. (Am. Compl. H5; A. Vizer Aff. 1] 1; I. Vizer Aff. H1).
Neither Amos nor IritVizer has ever resided in Massachusetts or owned any property here, and

neither of those defendants has ever maintained a telephone number, bank account or mailing

address in the Commonwealth. (A. Vizer Aff. H16; I. Vizer Aff. H16). Moreover, the Vizers have
never traveled to Massachusetts for the purpose of conducting business in Massachusetts.

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29 Filed 08/30/16 Page 5 of 22

(Id.). Nor have they derived personal income as a result of any business activities that took
place in the forum. (Id.).

Defendant Mauiva AirExpress is an inactive Florida limited liability company, which was
formed as a separate and distinct entity from ViaAir for the purpose of exploring certain

business opportunities. (A. Vizer Aff. HH 7-8; I. Vizer Aff. HH 7-8). At the time it was active,
Amos Vizer was serving as the company's Chairman, and Irit Vizer was serving as its Manager.

(A. Vizer Aff. H7; I. Vizer Aff. 1) 7). As in the case of ViaAir, Mauiva AirExpress has never
maintained an office, registered agent, mailing addressor telephone number in Massachusetts,
and has neverowned any real property in the Commonwealth. (Id). Additionally, it has never

opened a bank account here, directed any advertising to Massachusetts residents, orderived
any revenue from business activities in Massachusetts. (Id.). There is no dispute that Mauiva

AirExpress contemplated and discussed potential partnership opportunities with the plaintiff.
(See A. Vizer Aff. H8; I. Vizer Aff. 1l 8). However, as described in more detail below, the Vizers
expressly denythat the partiesever entered into a contractual agreement.
initial Communications Between the Parties

The plaintiff, Cestari, is a travel marketing and airline industry executive who resides in

Middlesex County, Massachusetts. (Am. Compl. HH 1,12). At some point during the summer of
2013, Cestari learned that the defendants were interested in establishing a scheduled charter
flight and business commuter flight operation. (1^H13). The piaintiff had experience in the
relevant field and was interested in exploring a potential business opportunity with the

defendants. (See

H13;A. Vizer Aff. H9). Accordingly, on or about July 24, 2013, Cestari

traveled to Florida to meet with Amos Vizer. (Am. Compl. 1) 14; A. Vizer Aff. 11 9). During the

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29 Filed 08/30/16 Page 6 of 22

meeting, the parties discussed the possibility of working together to develop Mauiva AirExpress
as a new entity to operate a charter and commuter flight business. (See Am. Compl. Uli 14-16,
21; A. Vizer Aff. nil 9-10).

Allegedly, the initial meeting between Cestari and Amos Vizer provedsuccessful, and

the parties continued to engage in communications regarding the potential new business. (Am.

Compl. nn 16-17). For instance, on or aboutJuly 25, 2013, Cestari engaged in a lengthy phone
call with Mr. Vizer in which they discussed details of the proposed venture, (jd 1117). Subse

quently, onor about July 30, 2013, Cestari returned to Florida, at Amos Vizer's request, in order
to meetwith and present details ofthe proposed business to executives from the Vizers'

companies, (jd liH 18, 20). According to the plaintiff, Amos Vizer introduced Cestari to the
executives as "a potential new hire to run the new charter and commuter flight business." (Id
H19). The plaintiff also claims that Amos Vizer instructed him to solicit feedback from the
executives and incorporate their comments into a business plan for Mauiva AirExpress. (Id
1120).

Cestari alleges that he proceeded to develop and revise details of a business plan with

input from the Mauiva management team. (]d H22). He also returned to Florida, on or about

August 21, 2013, to participate in more meetings with groups ofemployees from the Vizers'
companies, (id H23). Cestari contends that during his visit, Amos Vizer discussed the plain
tiffs formal role in the company, and offered him employment with Mauiva AirExpress. (jd
nil 24-26). The defendants refute Cestari's claim that anysuch offer occurred or that an
employment contract was formed.

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29 Filed 08/30/16 Page 7 of 22

The Alleged Empiovment Agreement

As set forth in his Amended Complaint, Cestari alleges that on August 22, 2013, Amos

Vizer offered him a position as the Executive Vice President of Mauiva AirExpress, "which was
understood to be an employment position with Mauiva, running the Mauiva AirExpress

business from Massachusetts." [\± 11 26). He also allegesthat Mr. Vizer offered to pay him a
salary of $7,000 per month, plusten percent of the net profits of the Mauiva AirExpress

business. (Id HH 27-28). According to the plaintiff, Mr. Vizer further agreed that Mauiva

would provide him with medical insurance coverage, and explained that the company's human
resource personnel would need to work out arrangements for the insurance due to the fact
that the plaintiff was located in Massachusetts ratherthan in Florida. (Id II 28). Cestari alleges
that he accepted the employment offer immediately, and that Amos Vizer welcomed him

aboard. (Id 1) 29). He further claims that Mr. Vizer provided him with an employee identifi
cation card, a Mauiva business address in Florida, a Mauiva telephone number, a Mauiva email
address and Mauiva business cards, (jd HH 30-31).

The plaintiff has submitted no evidence to support these allegations. In particular, he
has presented no affidavits attesting to the alleged facts, and has filed noexhibits referencing
the alleged agreement. The Amended Complaint is not verified. The defendants, on the other
hand, have submitted affidavits from Amos and Irit Vizer in which the Vizers expressly deny that
any of the defendants entered into an employment agreement with Cestari, or that Amos Vizer
ever told Cestari that he was an employee of Mauiva AirExpress or ViaAir. (A. Vizer Aff. 1I1111-

12; I. Vizer Aff. H11). Rather, according to Amos Vizer, he informed Cestari that any potential
business relationship between the plaintiff and Mauiva AirExpress "would be that of an

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29 Filed 08/30/16 Page 8 of 22

independent contractor and not as an employee ofthat company." {A. Vizer Aff. H12). In
addition, the Vizers have testified that they never contemplated performing any business or

providing anyservices in Massachusetts, that none of the defendants have rendered any
services inthe Commonwealth or performed any workthat was targeted at Massachusetts, and

that they have had no reason to believe that anyof the defendants would be subjected to any
business dealings or court proceedings in this forum. (A. Vizer Aff. HD 14-15; 1. Vizer Aff.
nil 14-15). The plaintiff has made no attempt to offer anyverified evidence to refute the
defendants' version of events.

Cestari's Alleged Work on Behalf of the Defendants

Cestari claims that after he returned to Massachusetts from his August 2013 trip to

Florida, he continued his efforts to launch the new Mauiva AirExpress business. (Am. Compl.

n 32). Thus, as the plaintiff describes in his Amended Complaint, he traveled to New York City
and Washington, D.C. to investigate potential business opportunities for Mauiva AirExpress.

(id nn 33-34). He also engaged in negotiations with individuals from Niagara Falls, New York;
Trenton, New Jersey; New Haven, Connecticut; Boston, Massachusetts; and Bedford,
Massachusetts — locations that could serve as preliminary destinations for Mauiva AirExpress

flights, (jd H35). On September 11,2013, Cestari returned to the defendants' offices in
Florida in order to report on his progress, (jd 11 36). Although Mr. Vizer was not present,
Cestari claims that he described his efforts on behalf of the proposed new venture to the
remainder of Mauiva's executive employees, (jd).

Allegedly, Cestari continued to perform business development work in Massachusetts,
and to travel to Florida at the defendants' request to discuss his progress with Mauiva's

Case l:15-cv-13402-l\/ILW Document 29 Filed 08/30/16 Page 9 of 22

management team. (J[d 1)1] 37-38). During a visit to Florida in late September 2013, the defen
dants allegedly set up an account for the plaintiff so he could obtain reimbursement for his

businessexpenses. {\± H39). According to the plaintiff, however, he had not yet received any

payment for the work that he had performed on behalf ofthe defendants. (See id. HI] 40-41).
Cestari claims that by October 2013, he had begun to express concern about the lack of

compensation to Mitch Pizik, his primary routine contact person at Mauiva, and that he notified
Amos Vizer about the problem as well. (Id). Mr. Pizik allegedly told Cestari not to worry, and

explained that the company was busy and typically took a long time to process new hires, (jd
11 40). Again, the plaintiff has failed to produce evidence to support any of these allegations.
Cestari claims that he continued to work and travel to promote the new business

venture, and to visit the defendants' headquarters in Florida, without receiving any compen

sation. (]d nil 42-43). Allegedly, however, Mauiva executives repeatedly assured him that he
would receive payment soon. (Jd 1) 42). For example, the plaintiff claims that he met with Irit
Vizer to discuss his lackof pay during a trip to Florida in November 2013, and that Mrs. Vizer
assured him that her husband would resolve the issue as soon as he was available. (]d HH 43-

44). However, the plaintiff asserts that the pay issuewas never resolved, and that he never
received any compensation for the work that he performed.
Cestari's Alleged Resignation

Cestari claims that the defendants' failure to pay him, and to provide him with express

authorityto consummate any business deals, ultimately forced him to resign from his employ
ment with Mauiva AirExpress. Once again, however, he has failed to present anything more

than bare allegations in support of his contentions. Accordingly, the following description of

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29

Filed 08/30/16 Page 10 of 22

the circumstances surrounding his resignation are based solelyon facts alleged in the Amended
Complaint.

According to the plaintiff, on or about December 10, 2013, he was negotiating with
executives in AtlanticCity, New Jersey as part of an effort to develop air service to that

destination. (Id H46). The plaintiff contends that during the negotiations, the executives

informed him that they would not agree to finalize a deal until Cestari provided a formal
document from Mauiva confirming the plaintiffs status as an employee or officer with

authority to bind the company. (Id). He further contends that he immediately broughtthis
issue to the attention of Mr. Pizik, who alerted Amos Vizer about the plaintiffs concerns. (Id

H47). Subsequently, on or about December 18, 2013, the plaintiff allegedly participated in a

telephone call with Mr. Pizik, Mr. Vizer and Mauiva's attorney in which Cestari emphasized his
need for both compensation and documentation verifying his authorityto enter into deals on
behalf of Mauiva AirExpress. (id H48). Cestari claims that while Mr. Vizer assured everyone

that the problem would be resolved, no steps were ever taken to address his concerns, (id
1149).

In early January 2014, Cestari allegedly participated in another telephone call with Mr.
Vizer and Mr. Pizik in which the plaintiff complained that he had been working for months

without pay, and that a number of potential deals were in jeopardy offalling through because
he could not verify that he was in a position to bind Mauiva AirExpress. (jd 1i 50). Cestari

claims that during this conversation, Mr. Vizer discussed ways in which the business could move
forward with the plaintiff working as a "partner" on the venture earning only a percentage of
future profits rather than a salary. (Id 1l 51). Cestari claims that he protested, and explained
10

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29 Filed 08/30/16 Page 11 of 22

that he could not continue to work without regular compensation. (]d H52). Allegedly, Mr.

Vizer again promised to rectifythe situation, but the matter was never resolved. (Jd 1) 53).
On January 15, 2014, Cestari traveled to Florida where he met with Mr. Pizik to discuss

the situation.^ (Jd 1) 54). According to the plaintiff, Mr. Pizik agreed that nothingseemed likely
to change, and Cestari expressed his intention to notify hiscontacts that he was unable to

complete the deals they had negotiated, and to resign from Mauiva, unless he was paid and
given authority to finalize deals byJanuary20, 2014. (Id.). On January 20, 2014, following the
defendants' alleged failure to complywith these conditions, Cestari resigned from his

employment. (Id 1)11 55, 57). In his Amended Complaint inthis action, Cestari claims that the
defendants "intentionally and knowingly misrepresented the terms of his employment,

intentionally and knowingly misrepresented that his compensation and employment paperwork
were being processed,and repeatedly, intentionally and knowingly misrepresented their
intention to pay him the compensation agreed to, or any compensation, in order to induce
[him] to continue working for them without compensation." (]d H56).
Additional factual details relevant to this court's analysis are provided below where
appropriate.
III.

ANALYSIS

As described above, Cestari has asserted claimsagainst the defendants for unpaid

wages in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act (Count I), breach of contractand breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count II), intentional misrepresentation

^ The plaintiff hasalleged that his January 15tripto Florida occurred in2013, butthis isclearly a typographical
error. (See Am. Compl. 1) 54).
11

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29 Filed 08/30/16 Page 12 of 22

(Count III) and violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A (Count IV). The defendants argue that all of
these claims must be dismissed because they do not have sufficient contacts with Massachu
setts to render them amenable to suit in this forum. Alternatively, they argue that even if there

is personal jurisdiction over them in Massachusetts, dismissal is still warranted for failure to
state a claim. For the reasons that follow, this court finds that Cestari has failed to make a

primafacie showing of personaljurisdiction over any of the defendants. Accordingly, this court
recommends that the motion to dismiss be allowed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
A.

Personal Jurisdiction - Generally

In order to exercise personaljurisdiction over a defendant, the court must "find
sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum to satisfy both that state's long-arm
statute and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause." Sawtelle v. Farrell. 70 F.Bd

1381,1387 (1st Cir. 1995). The First Circuit has "sometimes treated the limits of Massachusetts's long-arm statute as coextensive with those of the Due Process Clause." Copia
Commc'ns. LLC v. AMResorts. L.P.. 812 F.3d 1,4 (1st Cir. 2016). In such cases, the court has

been able to "sidestep the statutory inquiry and proceed directly to the constitutional

analysisf.]" Davnard. 290 F.3d at 52. Recently, however, the First Circuit has "suggested that
Massachusetts's long-arm statute might impose more restrictive limits on the exercise of

personal jurisdiction than does the Constitution." Copia Commc'ns. 812 F. 3d at 4. This court
finds that in the instant case it is not necessary to resolve "this possible tension" in the case law
or to consider whether the record satisfies the Massachusetts long-arm statute because the

record does not support a finding of personal jurisdiction over the defendants under the
potentially less restrictive constitutional standard. See id.
12

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29

Filed 08/30/16 Page 13 of 22

Under the Due Process Clause, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction "over an out-

of-state defendant only ifthat defendant has 'certain minimum contacts with [the forum state]
such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and sub

stantial justice.'" Id (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington. 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S. Ct. 154,90

L Ed. 95 (1945)) (alteration in original; additional quotations and citation omitted). According
ly, "(tjhe accepted mode of analysis for questions involving personal jurisdiction concentrates

on the quality and quantity of the potential defendant's contacts with the forum." Phillips
Exeter Acad. v. Howard Phillips Fund. Inc.. 196 F.3d 284, 288 (1st Cir. 1999). "Jurisdiction is

proper... wherethe contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself thai
create a substantial connection with the forum State." Asahi Metal Indus. Co.. Ltd. v. Superior

Court ofCaL.SolanoCtv.. 480 U.S. 102,109,107 S. Ct. 1026,1030, 94 L. Ed. 2d 92 (1987)

(punctuation and emphasis in original, quotationsand citations omitted).

"Personal jurisdiction may be eithergeneral or specific." Cossaboon v. Maine Med.
Ctr.. 600 F.3d 25,31 (1st Cir. 2010). Specific jurisdiction exists "wherethe cause of action arises

directly out of, or relates to, the defendant's forum-based contacts." \± (quoting Pritzker v.
Yari. 42 F.3d 53, 60 (1st Cir. 1994)). "General jurisdiction broadly subjects the defendant to suit
in the forum state's courts 'in respect to all matters, even those that are unrelated to the
defendant's contacts with the forum.'" jd (quoting Phillips Exeter Acad., 196 F.3d at 288).
Thus, a court mayassert general jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant only where the
defendant's activities within the forum state are "so substantial and of such a nature as to

justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those
activities." Goodvear Dunlop Tires Operations. S.A. v. Brown. 564 U.S. 915, 924,131 S. Ct.

13

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29 Filed 08/30/16 Page 14 of 22

2846, 2853,180 L Ed. 2d 796 (2011) (quoting \nt'\ Shoe. 326 U.S. at 318, 66 S. Ct. 154). In this
case, Cestari has failed to make the evidentiary showing necessary to establish that the
defendants' contacts with Massachusetts are sufficient to satisfy either standard.
B.

General Personal Jurisdiction

TheSupreme Court has "made clearthat onlya limited set of affiliations with a forum
will render a defendant amenable to [general] jurisdiction there." Daimler AG v. Bauman. 134

S. Ct. 746, 760,187 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2014). "Foran individual, the paradigm forum for the exer
cise of general jurisdiction is the individual's domicile[.]" Goodvear Dunlop Tires Operations.
564 U.S. at 924,131S. Ct. at 2853. "With respect to a corporation, the place of incorporation

and principal place of business are paradigm basesfor general jurisdiction." Daimler. 1345. Ct.

at 760 (quotations, punctuation and citations omitted). In addition, the Supreme Court has left
open "the possibility that in an exceptional case, a corporation's operations in a forum other
than itsformal place of incorporation or principal place of business may be so substantial and of
such a nature as to render the corporation at home in that State." ]d at 761 n.l9 (internal
citation omitted). In this case, even accepting all of the plaintiff's unverified and unsupported
allegations as true, there is no basisfor a finding of general jurisdiction.

There is no dispute that both of the Vizers are residents of Florida, and that they have
never resided in Massachusetts or have owned any property here. (Am. Compl. HH 4-5; A. Vizer

Aff. II16; I. Vizer Aff. H16). Moreoever, there is no evidence showingthat the individual
defendants have conducted activities - much less substantial activities - in the forum state.

With respect to the corporate defendants, it is undisputed that neither ViaAir nor Mauiva

AirExpress was formed under the laws of Massachusetts or has ever maintained a principal
14

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29 Filed 08/30/16 Page 15 of 22

place of business in the Commonwealth. {Am. Compl.

2-3; A. Vizer Aff. DH 5-7; I. Vizer Aff.

nil 5-7). Additionally, there is nothing in the record to suggest that either of those companies
conducts, or has ever conducted, any continuous or substantial operations in Massachusetts.
See Goodvear Dunlop Tires Operations. 564 U.S. at 919,1315. Ct. at 2851 (holding that general

jurisdiction over out-of-state corporation is present onlywhen the corporation's "affiliations
with the State are so 'continuous and systematic' as to render [it] essentially at home in the

forum State" (quoting Int'l Shoe. 326 U.S. at 317, 66 S. Ct. 154)). Therefore, the record does not
justify this court's assertion of general jurisdiction over any of the defendants.

This court's conclusion that general jurisdiction is lacking is not undermined by Cestari's

allegation that Amos Vizer hired him as an Executive Vice President of Mauiva AirExpress, with
responsibility for running the Mauiva AirExpress businessfrom his home state of Massachu

setts. (See Am. Compl. HH 25-26, 29). Even accepting the plaintiff's allegations as true,^ they
would not support a finding of general jurisdiction. As described in the Amended Complaint,
Cestari remained employed by Mauiva or Mauiva AirExpress for onlyfive months, and during
that time he traveled and explored work opportunities at various locations up and down the

east coast. (^ Am. Compl. HII 25-26,33-36, 57). Therefore, he has not shown that the
defendant companies have "affiliations 'so continuous and systematic as to render [them]

essentially at home'" in Massachusetts, "i.e., comparable to a domestic enterprise" here.

^ Thiscourt notes, however, that the plaintiff has not submitted any evidentiary support for these allegations,

which are directly disputed bythe defendants' affidavits. (SeeA. Vizer Aff. DH11-14; I. Vizer Aff. HI) 11-14).
Accordingly, this court is not requiredto accept those allegations as true. See Boit, 967 F.2d at 680 (rejecting
plaintiffs' assertion that court must acceptthe unsupported allegations intheir complaint as true).
15

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29

Filed 08/30/16 Page 16 of 22

Daimler. 134 S. Ct. at 758 n.ll (quoting Goodvear Dunlop Tires Operations. 564 U.S. at 919,131
S. Ct. at 2851) (internal quotations omitted).
C.

Specific Personal Jurisdiction

"Where the defendant is not subject to general jurisdiction, due process may still permit

a district court to exercise specificjurisdiction." Venmill Indus.. Inc. v. ELM. Inc.. 100 F. Supp. 3d

59, 67 (D. Mass. 2015). For purposes of the specificjurisdiction analysis, the FirstCircuit has
"broken the minimum contacts analysis into three categories - relatedness, purposeful
availment, and reasonableness[.]" Adelson v. Hananel. 510 F.3d 43,49 (1st Cir. 2007). Thus, as
the Court has explained:

First, the claim underlying the litigation must directly arise out of, or
relate to, the defendant's forum-state activities. Second, the defendant's
in-state contacts must represent a purposeful availment of the privilege
of conducting activities in the forum state, thereby invoking the benefits
and protections of that state's laws and making the defendant's
involuntary presence before the state's courts foreseeable. Third, the
exercise of jurisdiction must, in light of the Gestalt factors, be reasonable.

jd (quoting Davnard. 290 F. 3d at 60) (additional citation omitted). "An affirmative finding on
each of the three elements of the test is required to support a finding of specific jurisdiction."
Phillips Exeter Acad.. 196 F.3d at 288. For the reasons that follow, this court finds that while

the conclusory, unverified allegations of the plaintiff might, iftrue, create a closerquestion of
specific jurisdiction, they are insufficient, especially in light of the defendants' express, verified
allegations to the contrary, to satisfy the relevant standard.
Relatedness

The relatedness prong of the jurisdictional analysis "requires the plaintiff to show 'a
demonstrable nexus between its claims and the defendant's forum-based activities, such that

16

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29 Filed 08/30/16 Page 17 of 22

the litigation itselfisfounded directly on those activities/" C.W. Downer &Co. v. Bioriginal
Food & Sci. Corp.. 771 F.Sd 59, 66 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting Adelson v, Hananel. 652 F.Bd 75, 81

(1stCir. 2011)) (punctuation omitted). Thus, "[t]heevidence produced to support specific
jurisdiction must showthat the cause of action either arises directly out of, or is related to, the
defendant's forum-based contacts." Phillips v. Prairie Eve Ctr.. 530 F.3d 22, 27 (1st Cir. 2008)

(quoting Harlow v. Children's Hosp.. 432 F.3d 50,60-61 (1st Cir. 2005)). In the instant case, ali
of the plaintiff's causes of action arise out of his claim for unpaid compensation that the
defendantsallegedly owed to him under the terms of an employment agreement. Therefore, in
evaluating relatedness, it isappropriate to "pay particularly close attention to 'the parties' prior

negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms ofthe contract and
the parties' actual course of dealing.'" Cossart v. United Excel Corp.. 804 F.3d 13, 20 (1st Cir.
2015) (quoting C.W. Downer &Co.. 771 F.3d at 66). The court must "conduct this analysis with
reference to the contacts the defendant[s] create[d] with the forum state, though those

contacts may be 'intertwined' with the activities of the plaintiff." C.W. Downer &Co.. 771 F.3d
at 66 (quoting Walden v. Fiore. —U.S. —, 134 5.Ct. 1115,1122-23,188 L Ed. 2d 12 (2014)).
Cestari alleges that he entered into a contract with the defendants in Florida. Neverthe
less, to establish that the defendants had an ongoing connection to Massachusetts, he argues
that the defendants entered into an employment contract with him knowing he resided in
Massachusetts and was conducting the work called for under the contract from Massachusetts.

(PI. 0pp. Mem. (Docket No. 21) at 5). Such facts ordinarily would be sufficient to satisfy the
relatedness requirement. SeeC.W. Downer &Co.. 771 F.3d at 66 (holding that plaintiff satisfied
relatedness requirement where evidence showed that defendant had "an ongoing connection
17

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29 Filed 08/30/16 Page 18 of 22

with Massachusetts in the performance under the contractU" and that plaintiffs claims arose
"from the alleged breach of that contract"). However, In this case, Cestari has failed to provide
an evidentiary basis for his assertion that the parties entered into an employment contract,
much less a contract that called for work to be performed in this forum. Similarly, he has pro

vided no evidentiary support for his assertion that he completed workon behalfof the defen
dants in Massachusetts, or for his claim that he alerted the defendants to the progress he was

making while present inthe Commonwealth. The defendants,for their part, have proffered
testimony refutingthe existence of a contract or any type of employment relationship.
Therefore, Cestari has failed to meet the applicable standard of proof.

While it is true that the plaintiff "need only make a prima facie showing of personal

jurisdiction" at this stage in the litigation, "[ejven a primafacie showing ... must be based on
specific facts set forth in the record." Boit. 967 F.2d at 680. The plaintiff "must produce
evidence to support [his] jurisdictional allegation because [he has] the burden of showing that

the court may exercise in personam jurisdiction over [the defendants]." Id Moreover, the

plaintiff's burden does not depend upon whether the defendants submit theirown evidence
disputing the plaintiffs allegations. "To hold that the [plaintiff] ha[s] made a primafacie
showing of personal jurisdiction because [the defendant] has not presented evidence to refute

the [plaintiff's] unsupported allegations would place the burden on defendants to prove that
the court does not have personal jurisdiction. Such a ruling would eviscerate the requirement

that plaintiffs provide affirmative proof of their jurisdictional allegations." Id at 681.

Consequently, Cestari's failure to provide affirmative proof offacts linking his claims to the
defendants' In-forum contacts, particularly In light of the defendants' evidence to the contrary,
18

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29

Filed 08/30/16 Page 19 of 22

precludesa finding of relatedness in this matter and defeats any claim of personaljurisdiction
over the defendants in this forum.
Purposeful Availment

Even ifCestari had proffered sufficient evidence to satisfy the relatedness prong of the

test for personal jurisdiction, he hasfailed to satisfy the purposeful availment prong of the

jurisdictional analysis. For purposes ofthiselement, "[t]he baseline rule is that a defendant is
subjectto jurisdiction only when it 'purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting
activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.'"

Carrerasv. PMG Collins. LLC. 660 F.Sd 549,555 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting J. Mclntvre Mach.. Ltd.

V. Nicastro. 564 U.S. 873, 880,131 S. Ct. 2780, 2787,180 L Ed. 2d 765 (2011)). Accordingly,

purposeful availment occurs "when a defendant deliberately targets its behavior toward the
society or economy of a particular forum [such that] the forum should have the powerto

subject the defendant to judgment regarding that behavior."

This "requirement guarantees

that a defendant will not be subjected to the exercise ofjurisdiction based solely on 'random,
isolated or fortuitous contacts with the forum state.'" Baskin-Robbins. 825 F.3d at 36 (quoting

Adelson. 510 F.3d at 50) (additional quotations and citation omitted). It further "ensures that a
defendant will not be sweptwithin a state's jurisdictional reach due solely to the 'unilateral

activity ofanother party or a third person.'" jd (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz. 471
U.S. 462,475,105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985)) (additional citation omitted).

"The two key focal points of [the purposeful availment analysis] are voluntariness and
foreseeability." Adelson. 510 F.3d at 50. The defendant's contacts with the forum "must be

voluntary and not based on the unilateral actions of another party." jd Additionally, "the
19

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29 Filed 08/30/16 Page 20 of 22

defendant's contacts must be such that he could 'reasonably anticipate being haled into court

there/"

(quotingWorld-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson. 444 U.S. 286, 297, ICQ 5. Ct.

559, 62 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1980)). The plaintiff has not provided evidence to satisfy either of these
requirements.

There is no dispute in the instant case that Cestari initiated the communications

between the parties by traveling to Florida and meeting with Amos Vizer to explore potential
business opportunities. (Am. Compl. DH 13-14; A. Vizer Aff. II 9). Accordingly, there is no

contention that any ofthe defendants solicited the plaintiff in Massachusetts or otherwise took

steps to facilitate contact with the forum. This factor weighs against a finding of purposeful
avallment.

On the other hand, Cestari alleges that the defendants were aware of and condoned his

working In Massachusetts. (See Am. Compl.

26, 28,37-38). These factors weigh in favor of

a finding of purposeful avallment. See C.W. Downer &Co.. 771 F.3d at 66-67 (finding that outof-state company had purposefully availed Itself ofthe privilege ofdoing business in Massachu
setts by soliciting the plaintiff's In-forum services, forming a contract that "envisioned con

tinuing and wide-reaching contacts" in Massachusetts, and causing the plaintiff to undertake
extensive activities on Its behalf in Massachusetts (quotations and citations omitted)). How

ever, as described above, Cestari has failed to proffer evidence to establish the existence ofa
contract between the parties under which Cestari would perform work from his home state of

Massachusetts, or to support his claim that he performed extensive work onthe defendants'
behalf while present in the forum. Therefore, this court is constrained to conclude that Cestari
has not met his burden of showing that the defendants "purposefullyestablished minimum
20

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29

Filed 08/30/16 Page 21 of 22

contacts with [Massachusetts] suchthat [they] should have reasonably anticipated begin haled
into a court [here]." Boit.967 F.2d at 681. His claims should be dismissed for this reason as
well.

In light of the plaintiff's failure to satisfy either the relatedness prongor the purposeful
availment prong of the test for specific jurisdiction^ there is no need to considerwhether it
would be reasonable to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Nor is it necessary
to address the defendants' alternative argument for dismissal based on Cestari's failure to state
a claim. See Cooia Commc'ns. LLC. 812 F.3d at 6 n.5 (decliningto consider whether Massachu

setts court's exercise of personaljurisdiction over defendant would be reasonable, or whether
matter should be dismissed on alternative grounds, where plaintifffailed to show purposeful

availment). Accordingly, this court recommends that the defendants' motion to dismiss be
allowed due to lack of personal jurisdiction.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For all the reasons detailed herein, this court finds that the plaintiff has failed to make a

primafacie showing that the defendants have sufficient contactswith Massachusetts to

support this court's assertion ofgeneral or specific personal jurisdiction over them. Therefore,
this court recommends to the District Judge to whom this case is assigned that the "Defen
dants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, or, in the Alternative, for Failure to

State a Claim" (Docket No. 12) be ALLOWED."

" The parties are hereby advised that underthe provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 any party who objects to these
proposed findings and recommendations must file a written objection theretowith the Clerk ofthisCourt within
14days ofthe party's receipt ofthis Report and Recommendation. The written objections must specifically

identify the portion ofthe proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis
forsuch objections. The parties arefurther advised that the United States Court ofAppeals for this Circuit has
repeatedly indicated that failure to comply with thisRule shall preclude further appellate review. SeeKeating v.
21

Case l:15-cv-13402-MLW Document 29 Filed 08/30/16 Page 22 of 22

/ s / JudithGail Dein
Judith Gail Dein

United States Magistrate Judge

Sec'v of Health & Human Servs..848 F.2d271, 275 (1st Cir. 1988); United States v. Valencia-Copete. 792 F.2d 4, 6

(1st Cir. 1986); Park MotorMart, inc. v. Ford MotorCo.. 616 F.2d 603, 604-05 (1st Cir. 1980); United States v.Vega.
678 F.2d 376, 378-79 (1st Cir. 1982);Scott v. Schweiker. 702 F.2d 13,14 (1st Cir. 1983); see also Thomasv. Am. 474
U.S. 140,153-54,106 S.Ct.466, 474,88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985). Accord Phinnevv. Wentworth Douglas Hosp.. 199
F.3d 1, 3-4 (1st Cir. 1999); Henlev Drilling Co. v. McGee. 36 F.3d 143,150-51 (1st Cir. 1994);Santiagov. Canon
U.S.A.. Inc.. 138 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1998).
22