Albino v. Global Equipment USA, Ltd.

Filing 107

ORDER resolving 98 Motion to Quash. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 06/28/2017. (JKT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ALEXANDER ALBINO,
Plaintiff,
V.

GLOBAL EQUIPMENT USA, LTD.,
Defendant.
ORDER
14-cv-6519

GLOBAL EQUIPMENT USA, LTD.,
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
ARVCO CONTAINER CORP., H.P. NEUN
CO., ISOWA AMERICA, INC., and
ISOWA CORPORATION,
Third-Party Defendants.

The parties are currently engaged in discovery limited for
the

purpose

of

exploring

According

jurisdiction.

Telesca's Order dated February 28,

2017,

to

Judge

written jurisdictional

discovery shall be completed by April 15, 2017, and all depositions
of third-party defendants ISOWA Corp.
Inc.

("IC")

and ISOWA America,

(''IAI") witnesses shall be completed by August 30, 2017.

Docket# 95.

See

On or about March 2, 2017, defendant and third-party

plaintiff Global Equipment USA,

LTD.

("Global")

sent IAI and IC

demands to produce pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, interrogatories
pursuant

to

Fed.

R.

Ci v.

P.

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30.

3 3,

and

notices

for

depositions

See Exs. "A-C" attached to IC/IAI's

Mot.

(Docket

#

Counsel

98)

deposition notices.

for

IC and IAI

objected to

the

See Global's Mem. of Law (Docket# 100-6) at

3; IC/IAI Mem. of Law (Docket# 98-7) at 4.
Global thereafter sent revised deposition notices, which are
now the subject of IC and IAI's motion to quash.
to IC/IAI's Mot.

Ex. "A" attached

IC and IAI object to the revised

(Docket# 98).

IC/IAI Mem.

notices as being overly broad, vague and ambiguous.
of Law (Docket# 98-7) at 4.

The parties conferred but were not

able to work out this dispute.

On April 28, 2017, IC and IAI moved

to quash the revised 30 (b) (6)

deposition notices.

Global responded on May 12, 2017
replied on May 1$,

2017.

(Docket# 100), and IC and IAI

(Docket# 102).

The Court heard oral

argument from Global and IC/IAI on June 22,
most of the disputes on the record.
hearing briefs to the Court.

Docket # 98.

2017,

and resolved

Each party submitted post-

See Docket ## 104,

105.

For the

reasons stated on the record and elaborated further below, it is
so ORDERED that:
1.

Global may depose IC/IAI's representative on the topic

of "jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR § 302(a)," New York's long-arm
jurisdiction

statute,

which

will

include

IC/IAI's

respective

business and course of conduct in New York prior to the accident
at issue in this case.

"[OJ ur statutory scheme permits [a party]

to bring the foreign defendant within the power of the New York
2

courts upon a lesser showing of some business contacts within the
State only if he demonstrates that his cause of action arose out
of those business contacts."
273, 419 N. E. 2d 321

(1981)

McGowan v.

Smith,

(emphasis supplied) .

52 N.Y.2d 268,
Although Global

argues that discovery should include events that post-date the
accident - particularly a 2015 service call by IAI concerning the
machine at issue in this case - Global has offered no theory under
which plaintiff's ihjury could have arisen out of IAI's post-dated
servicing

of

the

machine.

The

Court

can

find

no

law

that

contemplates that contacts which occur after the cause of action
be used to support

and indeed, after the filing of the lawsuit
a theory of long-arm jurisdictioh under CPLR

§

302 (a) . 1

Although

Global argues generally that IC/IAI had sufficient contacts with

'The cases cited by Global do not stand for the proposition for
which they are offered.
Global cites to Ball v. Metallurgie
Hoboken-Overpelt, S.A., 902 F.2d 194 (2d Cir. 1990) as supporting
the proposition that New York's long-arm jurisdiction can extend
to a defendant who had minimal contacts at the time of the incident
but then derived revenue from New York in the year that the suit
was filed.
The Court's reading of Ball supports no such finding;
the Second Circuit found it unnecessary to even consider the timing
argument because it found the contacts to be insufficient to
support jurisdiction under any theory. Jacobs v. Felix Bloch Erben
Verlag fur Buhne Film und Funk KG, 160 F.Supp.2d 722 (S.D.N.Y.
2001) only restates the proposition that "[t] he plaintiff must
show both that the defendants transacted business in the state and
that the Plaintiffs' cause of action arose from that business. It
is well settled that the relationship between the claim and the
in-state transaction must be 'direct."'
Id. at 739 (citation
omitted). Global's final cited case likewise does not lend support
to their argument.
See Williams v. Beemiller, Inc., 100 A.D.3d
143, 952 N.Y.S.2d 333 (2012).
3

New

York

at

the

time

of

the

suit,

this

argument,

and

the

sufficiency of individual contacts with the state, is misplaced in
a discussion of specific jurisdiction under CPLR § 302.

To fall

under New York's long-arm statute, the transaction must be directly
related to the cause of action, and discovery on alleged contacts
after the incident at issue is not germane to determining longarm jurisdiction.
2.

Global may depose IC/IAI's representative on the topic
This

concerning "servicing of the Flexo Die Cutter by IC/IAI."

includes any contacts with the machine in New York prior to the
sale

to

HP

Neun,

and

servicing

of

the

machine

prior

to

the

accident.
3.
of

the

Global may depose IC/IAI's representative on the topic
corporate

structure between IC and

overlap in corporate officers,
plans,

joint

financial

and

IAI,

shared finances,
human

resource

including any
shared business

assets,

and

relationship as stated on IC's website.
SO ORDERED.

Feldman
ed States Magistrate Judge
Dated:

June 28, 2017
Rochester, New York

4

the