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
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?