Forward Financing LLC v. Mark D. Guidubaldi & Associates, LLC et al
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered The 18 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. (see attached Order) (Montes, Mariliz)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
FORWARD FINANCING LLC,
Case No. 16-CV-12406-LTS
GUIDUBALDI & ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al.,
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 18)
April 11, 2017
Plaintiff, a Massachusetts company, alleges Defendants committed tortious interference
by “directing” merchants to breach their contracts with Plaintiff. Doc. 1 at 7. Defendants have
moved to dismiss, arguing venue is improper because neither of the Defendants and none of the
merchants Defendants allegedly “direct[ed]” is in Massachusetts.1 Doc. 18 at 5-6. This
argument fails. According to the Complaint, Defendants knew about the merchants’ contracts
with Plaintiff and intentionally interfered with those contracts. Doc. 1 at 7. Because Plaintiff is
“headquartered in [Massachusetts], this district is one of the places where the tortious
interference . . . occurred and where the harms from” Defendants’ alleged torts “were felt.”
Astro-Med, Inc. v. Nihon Kohden America, Inc., 591 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2009) (citation
omitted). Moreover, the Court notes that neither of the two Defendant corporations challenges
that it was “subject to personal jurisdiction” in this District at the time this action “commenced”;
Defendants also argued this action should yield to a similar lawsuit between the parties in Illinois. See Doc. 18 at
2. However, that lawsuit has been dismissed, see Doc. 20-1, so that argument is moot.
thus, Defendants are “deemed to reside” in this District “[f]or purposes of venue.” Id. at 11 n.6
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)) (internal quotation marks omitted). For these reasons, the Court
finds venue in this District is “proper” under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2). Id. at 11-12. The Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. 18) is DENIED.
/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Leo T. Sorokin
United States District Judge
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?