Topnotch Tennis Tours, LLC v. Global Tennis Connections Limted

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 11 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Global Tennis shall file its answer within fourteen days from entry of this Order. Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 11/10/2014. (Barrett, C)

FILLU

IN CLERKS OFFICE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------x
TOPNOTCH TENNIS TOURS, LLC,
dba GRAND SLAM TENNIS TOURS,

* NOV 142014 *
BROOKLYN OFFICE
MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Plaintiff,
13-CV-4844 (SLT)(VMS)

-againstGLOBAL TENNIS CONNECTIONS LIMITED,
Defendant.
----------------------------------------------x
TOWNES, United States District Judge:

Topnotch Tennis Tours, LLC ("Topnotch") filed this diversity action against Global
Tennis Connections Limited ("Global Tennis") on August 28, 2013, alleging breach of contract
and alternative claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel. (ECF No. 1.)
Defendant Global Tennis filed its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) on April 26, 2014. (ECF No. 11.) For the reasons set
forth below, Defendant's motion is denied
LEGAL STANDARD
On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction brought pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the court has
jurisdiction over the defendant. In re Magnetic Audiotape Antitrust Litig., 334 F.3d 204, 206 (2d
Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Because Global Tennis brings this motion prior to discovery,
Topnotch may defeat this motion "by making a prima facie showing of jurisdiction by way of the
complaint's allegations, affidavits, and other supporting evidence." Mortg. Funding Corp. v.
Boyer Lake Pointe, LC, 379 F. Supp. 2d 282, 285 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (citations omitted).
"Furthermore, in considering a Rule 12(b)(2) motion, the pleadings and affidavits are to be
construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the non-moving party, and all doubts are to be
-1-

resolved in plaintiffs favor." Allied Dynamics Corp. v. Kennametal, Inc., 965 F. Supp. 2d 276,
287 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (citations omitted). However, conclusory statements, without supporting
facts, will not suffice. Mirman v. Feiner, 900 F. Supp. 2d 305, 309 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (citation
omitted).
BACKGROUND
The Court recites the following facts from the complaint and affidavits submitted by the
parties. The Court assumes these facts to be true only for the purpose of deciding this motion
and construes them in the light most favorable to Topnotch, the non-moving party.
This case arises from a contract dispute between Topnotch, a Vermont limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Stowe, Vermont, and Global Tennis, a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of Great Britain with its principal place of
business in London, England. (Compi. ¶J 3-4, ECF No. 1.) Topnotch organizes tennis packages
that include hotel accommodations, tickets to tennis tournaments, and meet-and-greet sessions
with professional tennis players. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Global Tennis scouts, represents, and promotes
professional tennis players. (Id. at ¶ 7.)
Andrew Chmura, president and owner of Topnotch, met John Morris, a Global Tennis
director, at the 2012 US Open in New York after previously discussing the possibility of doing
business together. (Chmura Aff.

TT 2, 25, ECF No. 12-1.) During this meeting, which lasted

approximately one hour, Morris solicited Topnotch's sponsorship of players represented by
Global Tennis. (Id. at ¶ 27.) Morris and Chmura also discussed the purchase of Wimbledon
tickets and the use of Topnotch's Wimbledon hospitality house. (Id. at ¶ 31.) Morris indicated
that he had a good contact for securing Wimbledon Debenture tickets. (Id. at ¶ 33.) Debenture

-2-

tickets cover a five-year period and include a badge that provides access to the Debenture
Holder's Lounge, which provides "a certain prestige." (Id. at ¶ 34.)
After this meeting, Chmura and Morris communicated via text message, e-mail, and
telephone about Topnotch's purchase of Wimbledon tickets from Global Tennis. (Id. at ¶ 38.)
The parties' submissions do not indicate whether any of these communications were directed at
New York, but Global Tennis states all of its communications originated in the UK. (Morris Aff.
¶ 9, ECF No. 11-1.) In January 2013, Cbmura and Morris met at the Australian Open to
continue negotiating the purchase of Wimbledon tickets. (Cbmura Aff. ¶ 40.) The parties then
signed a contract in Melbourne, Australia. (Id. at ¶ 40; Morris Aff. ¶ 10.) The contract required
Global Tennis to provide Topnotch 78 Wimbledon tickets. (Compl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 1.)
In 2013, Wimbledon was scheduled to begin on June 24. (Id.) Topnotch completed
timely payment for the tickets by May 20, 2013. (Id. at ¶ 12.) The contract required Global
Tennis to send the tickets to Topnotch by June 9, 2013. (Id. at ¶ 13.) After Global Tennis failed
to deliver the tickets by June 9, Morris told Chmura that Morris had "picked [the tickets] up and
noticed the 4 weren't together, it was an honest mistake and they have our 4 together but I need
to collect them again and swap them over." (Id. at ¶ 14.) But prior to the start of Wimbledon on
June 24, Global Tennis provided Topnotch with only 24 of the 78 tickets. (Id. at ¶ 16.)
Topnotch secured replacement tickets at a cost of f-128,100. (Id. at ¶J 23-24.) However,
because some of these tickets did not meet the promised standards, Topnotch refunded $60,266
to its customers. (Id. at ¶ 24.)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Topnotch filed this diversity action against Global Tennis on August 28, 2013, alleging
breach of contract and alternative claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and promissory

-3-

estoppel. (ECF No. 1.) Global Tennis filed this motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) on April 26, 2014. (ECF No.
11.) The parties conducted no discovery and the Court has not held an evidentiary hearing on the
issue of personal jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION
"As a general rule, 'the amenability of a foreign corporation to suit in a federal court in a
diversity action is determined in accordance with the law of the state where the court sits, with
"federal law" entering the picture only for the purpose of deciding whether a state's assertion of
jurisdiction contravenes a constitutional guarantee." Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler
Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779, 784 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Arrowsmith v. United Press
Int'l, 320 F.2d 219 5 223 (2d Cir. 1963) (en banc)). This Court must determine: "(1) whether
New York law would confer jurisdiction by New York courts over the defendant, and (2)
whether the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant comports with the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment." Allied Dynamics, 965 F. Supp. 2d at 289 (citation omitted).
Global Tennis argues that New York's long-arm statute, C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1), does not
provide a basis for personal jurisdiction and that this Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction
over Global Tennis would not comport with due process. (Mem. Supp. 8-12, ECF No. 11-3.)
Topnotch argues that personal jurisdiction exists over Global Tennis based on service of the
summons and complaint on a Global Tennis director physically present in New York. (Mem.
Opp. 8-10, ECF No. 12.) Alternatively, Topnotch argues that New York's long-arm statute
provides a proper basis for personal jurisdiction. (Id. at 10-13.)

In

A. Transient Jurisdiction
Topnotch relies on Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Mann, 495 U.S.
604 (1990), for its argument that service of the summons and complaint on a Global Tennis
director physically present in New York provides a proper basis for jurisdiction. In Burnham the
Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause does not prohibit a state court from exercising
personal jurisdiction over a defendant based on in-state service of process. 495 U.S. at 628. The
petitioner husband in Burnham travelled from New Jersey to California to conduct some
business and visit his children, who lived with their mother in California. Id. at 608. While in
California, petitioner's wife served him with a summons and divorce petition. Id. The husband
moved in California Superior Court to quash the service of process on the ground that the
California court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because of his minimal contacts with
California. Id. The Superior Court denied the husband's motion, and the California Court of
Appeal denied mandamus relief, holding that an individual defendant's presence and service
within the state provided "a valid jurisdictional predicate for in personam jurisdiction." Id.
(citation omitted). The Supreme Court affirmed, noting that "[a]mong the most firmly
established principles of personal jurisdiction in American tradition is that the courts of a State
have jurisdiction over nonresidents who are physically present in the State." Id. at 610.
Topnotch argues that the principle affirmed by the Supreme Court in Burnham extends to
entities like Global Tennis. In support of this position, Topnotch points to the Second Circuit's
decision in First American Corp. v. Price Waterhouse LLP, 154 F.3d 16 (2d Cir. 1998). In First
American, the Second Circuit found that personal service upon a partner provided an adequate
basis for personal jurisdiction over the partnership entity pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 3 10(a) and
comported with due process. 154 F.3d at 19-21. However, unlike First American, this case

-5-

does not involve a partnership but a corporation. Topnotch offers no substantive analysis as to
why this Court should find that New York law provides for transient jurisdiction over a
corporation. Rather, at least one district court, after a detailed analysis of New York's long-arm
statute and decisions of the New York Court of Appeals, has held that "New York law does not
provide for transient jurisdiction to be had over corporations where the corporation is not
continuously and systematically 'doing business' in New York." Kahn Lucas Lancaster, Inc. v.
Larklnt'l Ltd., 956 F. Supp. 1131, 1137 (S.D.N.Y. 1997); see also First Am., 154 F.3d at 19
("One commentator has pointed out the absence of any additional requirement that a partnership
be doing business in New York, and attributes that omission to the fact that a partnership (unlike
a corporation) has no separate existence." (citing Joseph M. McLaughlin, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 310,
Practice Commentaries, at 371 (McKinney 1990))).
The facts before the Court indicate Global Tennis was not "doing business" in New York,
and Topnotch does not attempt to argue that Global Tennis meets this more restrictive standard.
Thus, personal service on Morris does not create a basis for this Court to exercise personal
jurisdiction over Global Tennis. See Kahn Lucas Lancaster, 956 F. Supp. at 1138 ("Plaintiff
does not attempt to argue that [defendant] has sufficient contacts with New York to establish
'doing business' under the CPLR § 301 test, and thus there is no jurisdiction based on
[plaintiff]'s personally serving [defendant's general merchandise manager] in New York.").
B. New York's long-arm statute

Alternatively, Topnotch argues that New York's long-arm statute, C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1),
provides a basis for personal jurisdiction over Global Tennis. (Mem. Opp. 10-13, ECF No. 12.)
Section 302 provides that "a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary.
who in person or through an agent.. . transacts any business within the state or contracts

0

anywhere to supply goods or services in the state." C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1). "To establish personal
jurisdiction under section 302(a)(1), two requirements must be met: (1) The defendant must have
transacted business within the state; and (2) the claim asserted must arise from that business
activity." Sole Resort, S.A. de C. V. v. Allure Resorts Mgmt., LLC, 450

F.3d 100 3 103 (2d Cir.

2006) (citation omitted).
1. Transacted business

Regarding the "transacted business" prong, there exists "no fixed standard by which to
measure the minimal contacts required to sustain jurisdiction under the provisions of CPLR
302." McKee Elec. Co. v. Rauland-Borg Corp., 20 N.Y.2d 377, 381-82, 229 N.E.2d 604, 607
(1967). "But at a minimum, a defendant who 'transacts business' in New York must
'purposefully avail[] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus
invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." SAS Grp., Inc. v. Worldwide Inventions, Inc.,
245 F. Supp. 2d 543, 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting McKee, 20 N.Y.2d at 382, 229 N.E.2d at
607). A court must consider the totality of the circumstances "and may not subject the defendant
to jurisdiction based on 'random,' 'fortuitous,' or 'attenuated' contacts." Id. (citing CutCo
Indus., Inc. v. Naughton, 806 F.2d 361, 365 (2d Cir. 1986)).
Although "[t]he test for transacting business under 302(a)(1) in contract actions can be
somewhat imprecise," certain principles guide this analysis. See id. (citations omitted). First,
contract negotiations that indicate a purposeful invocation of New York law qualify as
transactions of business. Id. (citing Premier Lending Servs., Inc. v. IL.J. Assocs., 924 F. Supp.
13, 16 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)). "It does not matter whether the negotiations are preliminary, whether
the contract is executed in New York, or whether performance is contemplated for New York."
Id. Second, "[c]ontract negotiations in New York will satisfy [§ 302(a)(1)] if the discussions

-7-

'substantially advanced' or were 'essential to' the formation of the contract or advanced the
business relationship to a more solid level." Id. (quoting ICC Primex Plastics Corp. v. LA/ES
Laminati Estrusi Termoplastici S.P.A., 775 F. Supp. 650, 655 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)). The duration of
the negotiations is not critical, and even a single short meeting can suffice. Moser v. Boatman,
392 F. Supp. 270, 273 (E.D.N.Y. 1975) (citation omitted). Moreover, "[j]urisdictional
significance can be attached to a 'social' visit during which substantive business discussions took
place which substantially furthered the parties' business relationship." Premier Lending, 924 F.
Supp. at 16 (citing CutCo, 806 F.2d at 367); see also Interface Biomedical Labs. Corp. v. Axiom
Med., Inc., 600 F. Supp. 731, 737 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) ("Meetings which are partially social in
nature, as well as meetings which merely create the likelihood of a more solid business
relationship are a sufficient basis for the exercise of in personam jurisdiction." (citation
omitted)).
Here, the meeting and negotiations in New York substantially advanced the business
relationship and formation of the contract at issue between Topnotch and Global Tennis.
Topnotch and Global tennis "went from a non-existent business relationship before the meeting
to a situation in which they were discussing aspects of a prospective contract for the sale of a
specific product," the Wimbledon Debenture tickets. See SAS, 245 F. Supp. 2d at 549.
Chmura's affidavit also shows that the parties discussed sources from which to procure
Debenture tickets and the details of the Debenture tickets Topnotch sought. See Interface, 600 F.
Supp. at 736 (finding that allegations of a discussion of "manufacturing details, alternative sizes
and shapes for the product, potential areas of application and marketing ideas" sufficed to show
"substantial negotiations took place in New York and that those negotiations significantly
advanced the formation of an agreement"). The parties finalized the contract a few months after

-8-

the New York meeting. (Chmura Aff. ¶ 40, ECF No. 12-1.) At this stage, Topnotch has met its
burden of showing Global Tennis transacted business in New York.
2. Arises out of
Regarding the second prong, a claim "arises out of' a defendant's transaction of business
in New York "when there exists a substantial nexus between the business transacted and the
cause of action sued upon." Agency Rent A Car Sys., Inc. v. Grand Rent A Car Corp., 98 F.3d
25, 31 (2d Cir. 1996) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "The defendant['s] New
York activities must be substantially proximate to the allegedly unlawful act before the cause of
action can be said to arise out of those activities." SAS, 245 F. Supp. 2d at 548 (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff bears the burden of securing jurisdiction with
respect to each claim. Id. Topnotch alleges breach of contract and alternative claims for
conversion, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel. (Compi.

TT 27-41, ECF No. 1.)

The negotiations discussed above culminated in the agreement upon which all of
Topnotch's claims are based. Topnotch thus satisfies the second prong. See Edel Gems, Inc. v.
Cont'l Jewelers, Inc., No. 91 Civ. 7030 (JSM), 1992 WL 88174, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 1992)
(finding nexus requirement satisfied where claims "resulted from the understanding allegedly
reached at the New York meeting"); SAS, 245 F. Supp. 2d at 551 ("[T]he combined effect of
[defendant's New York] activities . . . was, allegedly, to create a potentially [long]-lasting
business relationship between [the parties], pursuant to which [plaintiff] undertook to promote
the sale of [defendant's] product. It is out of that relationship that these claims arise." (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted)).

0

C. Due Process
Having found an adequate basis for long-arm jurisdiction over all of Topnotch's claims,
the Court must next determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Global Tennis
comports with due process. This involves two components: (1) the minimum contacts inquiry;
and (2) the reasonableness inquiry. Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158,
171 (2d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
1. Minimum Contacts

A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant if that defendant
"purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus
invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S.
462, 475 (1985) (citation omitted). "Because the 'purposeful availment' requirement of N.Y.
C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1) derives directly from Hanson [v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958)],...
'satisfaction of the section 302(a)(1) criteria will generally meet federal due-process
requirements." Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA. v. BP Amoco P.L.C., 319 F. Supp.
2d 352, 365 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (citation omitted); see also Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian
Bank, SAL, 732 F.3d 161 5 170 (2d Cir. 2013) (noting that it would be "rare" that due process
would prevent a court from exercising personal jurisdiction over a defendant who meets the
requirements of New York's long-arm statute).
The jurisdictional basis for Topnotch's claims is the meeting and negotiation between the
parties in New York. Topnotch's claims against Global Tennis all arise from the contract that
emerged from this initial negotiation. The Court finds that Global Tennis purposefully availed
itself of the privileges and benefits of New York law through the presence of one of its directors
at the New York negotiations with Topnotch and could reasonably have foreseen being haled to

-10-

a New York court. See CutCo, 806 F.2d at 368 ("[N]egotiations and discussions in the forum
state relevant to the formation of a contract constitute the purposeful transaction of business for
an action arising out of the alleged breach of that contract." (citing Capitol Cabinet Corp. v.
Interior Dynamics, Ltd., 541 F. Supp. 588, 590 (S.D.N.Y. 1982))). Other courts within the
Second Circuit have found the exercise of personal jurisdiction appropriate in similar
circumstances. See, e.g., NW Direct Design & Mfg., Inc. v. Global Brand Mktg., Inc., No. 98
Civ. 4756(LAP), 1999 WL 493348, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 1999) (finding jurisdiction existed
over defendant on basis of defendant's officer's presence at negotiations held in New York).
2. Reasonableness
The Court looks to five factors in determining the reasonableness of the exercise of
jurisdiction over a defendant:
(1) the burden that the exercise of jurisdiction will impose on the defendant; (2)
the interests of the forum state in adjudicating the case; (3) the plaintiff's interest
in obtaining convenient and effective re1ief, (4) the interstate judicial system's
interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of the controversy; and (5) the
shared interest of the states in furthering substantive social policies.
Chloe, 616 F.3d at 164-65 (citing Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 11314 (1987)). Because Topnotch has made a threshold showing of minimum contacts, Global
Tennis "must present 'a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would
render jurisdiction unreasonable." Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez
(Bank Brussels Lambert II), 305 F.3d 120, 129 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
Global Tennis argues that "[t]he costs of defending the action in New York would be so
high as to create a substantial and undue burden on [Global Tennis]." (Morris Aff. ¶ 16, ECF
No. 11-1.) The Court acknowledges that litigating this action in New York would impose some
cost on Global Tennis, which is principally located in England. But the resultant burden, if any,
is limited. See Bank Brussels Lambert II, 305 F.3d at 129-30 ("Even if forcing the defendant to
-11-

litigate in a forum relatively distant from its home base were found to be a burden, the argument
would provide defendant only weak support, if any, because 'the conveniences of modern
communication and transportation ease what would have been a serious burden only a few
decades ago." (citation omitted)). And in any case, "[t]he inconvenience. . . cuts both ways
since all of [Plaintiff's] witnesses would have to travel to [England] if the case were brought
there." See Chloe, 616 F.3d at 173. Global Tennis does not argue that any other factors weigh
against jurisdiction. Nor does it appear to the Court that they would.
In light of this Court's finding that Topnotch has made a threshold showing of minimum
contacts, Defendant's conclusory, "generalized complaints of inconvenience [and cost] arising
from having to defend. . . from suit in New York do not add up to a compelling case that the
presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable." See id. (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court therefore finds that asserting jurisdiction over
Global Tennis comports with "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" and
satisfies the Due Process Clause's reasonableness inquiry.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is denied.
Global Tennis shall file its answer within fourteen days from entry of this Order.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sandra L. Townes
SANDRA L. TOWNES
United States District Judge
Dated: )2'flDr) j / i/
Brooklyn, New York

(0 /

D/

-12-