Thackurdeen v. Duke Univ.

• Decision Date: 01 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–cv–6311 (AJN).,14–cv–6311 (AJN).
• Citation: 130 F.Supp.3d 792
• Parties: Roshni D. THACKURDEEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DUKE UNIV., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

130 F.Supp.3d 792

Roshni D. THACKURDEEN, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.DUKE UNIV., et al., Defendants.

No. 14–cv–6311 (AJN).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed Sept. 1, 2015.

Filed Sept. 2, 2015.

Tina Glandian, Geragos & Geragos, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.

James P. Cooney, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP, Charlotte, NC, Paul Francis Clark, Wade Clark Mulcahy, New York, NY, Reid L. Phillips, Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., Greensboro, NC, W. Michael Dowling, Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, Raleigh, NC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

ALISON J. NATHAN

, District Judge:

This case arises from the tragic drowning death of Ravi Thackurdeen ("Ravi" or "Thackurdeen"), a student at Duke University ("Duke") and the Organization for Tropical Studies ("OTS," and, collectively with Duke, the "Defendants"), a North Carolina-based institution promoting research and education about the use of natural resources in the tropics. Thackurdeen's parents, Roshni D. Thackurdeen and Raj B. Thackurdeen ("Plaintiffs"), bring suit individually and on behalf of the decedent against Defendants Duke and OTS for various negligence-based claims and for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Dkt. No. 1.

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332

. Defendants, however, now move to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Dkt. Nos. 16, 27. For the reasons below, Defendants' motions are GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Jurisdictional Facts¹

On January 23, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiffs the opportunity to engage in limited jurisdictional discovery. See Dkt. No. 36. That period of discovery closed on February 28, 2015. Id. Based on that discovery, the parties have provided the Court with the following facts relevant to the subject of personal jurisdiction.²

1. Duke

Defendant Duke is a non-profit research and educational institution organized under the laws of North Carolina. See Dkt. No. 18 ("Thornton Declaration") ¶ 2. It maintains its offices and principal place of business in Durham County, North Carolina. Id. Duke recruits students from across the whole of the United States, including New York. Id. ¶ 5. Each year, approximately eight percent of Duke students come from New York, although North Carolina is consistently the state with the greatest number of undergraduate, graduate, and professional school students at the university. Id. Duke employs two recruitment officers specifically tasked with recruiting students from New York. See Guttentag Dep. 8:11–18.

Duke has a substantial economic impact within North Carolina, operating a number of business entities and maintaining an extensive network of facilities within the state. See Thornton Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6, 7. Duke also operates an extensive motor fleet comprising hundreds of vehicles. Id. ¶ 8. All of these vehicles are licensed and based in North Carolina with the exception of a single vehicle licensed in Montana. Id.

Duke has no offices, stores, or campus in New York, nor does it own any real property in the state. Id. ¶¶ 9–10. It is not registered to do business or offer online distance education in New York. Id. ¶¶ 13–14.

The university does, however, offer three education programs in New York in conjunction with New York University. Id. ¶ 19. It also offers volunteer programs in a number of locations around the world, including New York. Id. ¶ 20. Duke also sends athletic teams to compete within New York and maintains an active alumni association within New York. Id. ¶¶ 21–22. Indeed, Duke raises a substantial amount of money from alumni located in New York and employs a regional alumni director tasked specifically with fundraising money in New York. See Wilder Dep. 11:8–15. In the past five years, Duke has raised over $172,000,000 from alumni and organizations located in New York. See Dkt. No. 3 ("Meislas Declaration"), Ex. 3 ¶¶ 25–26.

2. OTS

OTS is a non-profit corporation that, like Duke, is incorporated under the laws of North Carolina and maintains its principal office in Durham, North Carolina. See Dkt. No. 28 ("Losos Declaration") ¶ 2. The office in Durham is OTS' only office in North America. Id. OTS facilitates and oversees international scientific research projects in Costa Rica and South Africa. Id. ¶ 3. OTS employs 228 people, most of whom work outside the United States. Id. ¶ 5. Those employees who are based in the United States work exclusively in Durham, North Carolina. Id.

OTS is sustained by fifty-five member institutions around the world, two of which are located in New York—Cornell University and SUNY–Stony Brook. Id. ¶ 6. These member institutions are allowed to vote on certain issues affecting the governance of OTS and pay annual dues for membership. Id. Member institutions have no rights or interests, however, in any assets owned by OTS. Id. ¶ 8.

OTS does not own or rent any property in New York, does not have any employees in New York, does not pay taxes in New York, maintains no bank accounts within New York, nor is it registered to do business in New York. Id. ¶¶ 11–12. Approximately three percent of OTS graduate and undergraduate students for the 2014 fiscal year were affiliated with New York-based institutions. Id. ¶ 13. OTS actively recruits students from across the country, including within New York. See Hawkins Dep. 32:17–33:9. The contract Thackurdeen and his parents signed with OTS was executed within New York. See Roshni Thackurdeen Decl., Ex. 5.

B. The Death of Ravi Thackurdeen

Ravi Thackurdeen was, by all accounts, an exceptional individual. He graduated as the valedictorian of his high school, where he volunteered and participated in a myriad of activities. See Compl. ¶ 8. After graduating from high school, Thackurdeen enrolled at Swarthmore College where he volunteered with the Swarthmore Fire and Protective Association and earned EMT certification. Id. ¶ 9. While at Swarthmore, Thackurdeen developed an interest in medicine, serving as an extern at Weill Cornell Medical College, conducting research into antibiotics, and serving as a member of the Swarthmore Pre–Med Society. Id.

In the spring of 2012, Thackurdeen temporarily enrolled as a student at Duke in order to participate in a Global Health and Tropical Medicine program run by OTS in Costa Rica. Id. ¶ 10. Enrollment with Duke was a requirement for the OTS program. Id. ¶ 24. While studying with OTS in Costa Rica, Thackurdeen conducted research into the relationship between cooking practices and upper respiratory infections in the local Ngobe community in Costa Rica. Id. ¶ 10.

At the end of the semester, in late April 2012, the OTS students were taken on a surprise, celebratory trip to the beach at Playa Tortuga on the south central Pacific coast of Costa Rica. Id. ¶ 14. According to the complaint, the students were told that it was safe to swim off the beach and were given minimal instruction on how to react if caught in a rip current. Id. ¶ 15. While visiting the beach, Thackurdeen and a fellow student were wading in shallow water when they were caught by a rip current that pulled them further out to sea. Id. ¶ 16. Although a fellow beachgoer was able to swim out and rescue his classmate, Thackurdeen was pulled over 300 yards away from shore and was forced to tread water while waiting for help to arrive. Id. Help did not arrive in time and Thackurdeen drowned to death. Id. ¶ 17. His body was not ultimately recovered until over thirty-six hours after he drowned. Id.

Plaintiffs allege that, after Thackurdeen had drowned, Duke and OTS delayed notifying his parents about the incident. Several hours after Ravi had drowned, Margaret Riley ("Riley"), the Assistant Vice Provost for Duke's Undergraduate Global Education program, called the Thackurdeens and informed them that their son was missing. Id. ¶ 18. After receiving this news, Roshni and Raj Thackurdeen booked the first flight available to Costa Rica. Id. While at the airport in New York, Plaintiffs called Riley in order to obtain more information. Id. ¶ 19. Riley assured the Thackurdeens that "everything was fine." Id.

After arriving in Costa Rica on April 30, 2012, the parents and other members of Thackurdeen's family joined the Red Cross and Costa Rican Coast Guard in searching for Thackurdeen's body. Id. ¶ 20. According to the Thackurdeens, while these search efforts were underway, OTS continued to hold celebratory events for its students. Id. ¶ 21. The search efforts ultimately proved unsuccessful and Thackurdeen's body was not located until discovered by a local fisherman early on the morning of May 1, 2012. Id. ¶ 22.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Defendants each move to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. "[I]n analyzing a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2)

motion, courts in New York follow a two-step process. First, a court will determine whether personal jurisdiction lies pursuant to New York's long-arm statute ... Second, a court must analyze whether personal jurisdiction comports with the basic requirements of due process." A.W.L.I. Grp., Inc. v. Amber Freight Shipping Lines, 828 F.Supp.2d 557, 563 (E.D.N.Y.2011). There are two ways that New York exercises personal jurisdiction over non-residents: "general jurisdiction pursuant to N.Y. CPLR § 301... or specific jurisdiction pursuant to N.Y. CPRL § 302." Id.

"On a Rule 12(b)(2)

motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant." Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson–Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 566 (2d Cir.1996) (citing Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 507 (2d Cir.1994) ). At this stage, the Court must construe the pleadings and any supporting materials in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, resolving any doubts in favor of jurisdiction. See Dorchester Fin. Sec., Inc. v. Banco BRJ, S.A., 722 F.3d 81, 85 (2d Cir.2013). The Court does not, however, draw ...