McConney v. Amtrak
| Decision Date | 27 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | 18-CV-05290 (NGG) (RER) |
| Parties | NATASHA MCCONNEY Plaintiff, v. AMTRAK, MICHAEL KEMPF, RANDOLL ERCKERT and STRAWSER CONSTRUCTION INC, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Plaintiff Natasha McConney brings this action against Defendants Amtrak, Michael Kempf, Randoll Erckert, and Strawser Construction, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff alleges that she suffered physical pain, bodily injury, and economic damages because of Defendants' negligence in operating their respective vehicles. Amtrak moves to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). (Amtrak's Mem. in Supp. Mot. to Dismiss ("Mem.") (Dkt. 17).) For the following reasons, Amtrak's motion is GRANTED.
The following facts are drawn from Plaintiff's complaint and are assumed to be true for the purpose of Amtrak's motion to dismiss.
On August 18, 2017, Plaintiff was a passenger on a train operated and maintained by Amtrak.1 (Compl. (Dkt. 1-1) ¶¶ 22-23, 35.) Michael Kempf was the train's operator. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 42.) While Plaintiff was aboard the train, it collided with a motor vehicle at an intersection of the railroad track and a road. (Id. ¶ 36-37.) At the time of the collision, the motor vehicle was owed by Strawser Construction Inc. and was driven by its employee, Randoll Erckert. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 28-29.)
Plaintiff alleges that the collision was caused by the careless and negligent manner in which the Defendants operated their respective vehicles. (Id. ¶ 39.) Plaintiff also alleges that the collision caused her injuries for which she required medical attention and from which she expects to suffer "for some time." (Id. ¶¶ 40-41.)
Plaintiff alleges that she is a citizen of the State of New York. (Id. ¶ 1.) At the time of the incident, Defendant Michael Kempf was a resident of the State of Georgia. (Id. ¶ 2.) The complaint alleges that corporation-Defendants Amtrak and Strawser Corporation were both foreign corporations authorized to conduct business in the State of New York. (Id. ¶¶ 3-6.) The complaint fails to allege the citizenship and principle place of business of either corporation, though papers later submitted to the court and federal statutes identify the District of Columbia as Amtrak's principle place of business and domicile. (See Pl. Mem. in Opp. to Motto Dismiss ("Opp.") (Dkt 20-1) at 2); see also 49 U.S.C. § 24301(b).
On August 22, 2018, Plaintiff initiated this action in the Supreme Court of New York, County of Queens, with the index number 712988/2018. (See Compl. at 2.) On September 20,2018, Amtrak removed the action to this court under 28 U.S.C §§ 1349 and 1441(a). (See Not. of Removal (Dkt. 1).) On December 3, 2018, the court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by no later than December 17, 2018 (see Dec. 3, 2018 Min. Entry), but Plaintiff failed to do so. On February 25, 2019, Amtrak moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) or, in the alternative, to transfer this action to the District Court for the District of South Carolina. (See Mem.) Plaintiff responded on March 12, 2019 (Opp.), and Amtrak replied on March 19, 2019 (Reply (Dkt. 21)).
A "district court has considerable procedural leeway" when "deciding a pretrial motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction." Dorchester Fin. Sec., Inc. v. Banco BRJ, S.A., 722 F.3d 81, 84 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order) (quoting Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Miller, 664 F.2d 899, 904 (2d Cir. 1981)). "It may determine the motion on the basis of affidavits alone; or it may permit discovery in aid of the motion; or it may conduct an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the motion." Id. Where the court opts not to hold a hearing or order jurisdictional discovery, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction. Id. (citing Ball v. Metallurgie Hoboken-Overpelt, S.A., 902 F.2d 194, 197 (2d Cir. 1990)). "A prima facie case requires non-conclusory fact-specific allegations or evidence showing that activity that constitutes the basis of jurisdiction has taken place." Chirag v. MT Marida Marguerite Schiffahrts, 604 F. App'x 16, 19 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order) (citing Jazini v. Nissan Motor Co., 148 F.3d 181, 186 (2d Cir. 1998)); see also Whitaker v. Am. Telecasting, Inc., 261 F.3d 196, 208 (2d Cir. 2001) .
"Personal jurisdiction of a federal court over a non-resident defendant is governed by the law of the state in which the court sits—subject, of course, to certain constitutional limitations of due process." Henderson v. I.N.S., 157 F.3d 106, 123 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 510 (2d Cir. 1994)). Therefore, "a district court must first 'determine whether there is jurisdiction over the defendant under the relevant forum state's laws.'" DeLorenzo v. Viceroy Hotel Grp., LLC, 757 F. App'x 6, 8 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) (quoting Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779, 784 (2d Cir. 1999)). If the forum state statute provides jurisdiction, "the court then must decide whether [the] exercise [of jurisdiction] comports with the requisites of due process." Id. (quoting Bensusan Rest. Corp. v. King, 126 F.3d 25, 27 (2d Cir. 1997)). However, "[i]f jurisdiction is statutorily impermissible," a court "need not reach the question of its constitutionality." Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239, 244 (2d Cir. 2007).
To establish that the court has personal jurisdiction over Amtrak, Plaintiff has to demonstrate to demonstrate Amtrak was "either present and doing business within the meaning of [CPLR] § 301," i.e., that Amtrak is subject to general personal jurisdiction, or that Amtrak "committed acts within the scope of New York's long-arm statute, CPLR § 302," i.e., that Amtrak is subject to specific personal jurisdiction. DeLorenzo, 757 F. App'x at 8 (quotation marks omitted). Each is addressed in turn.
A party "is subject to general jurisdiction in New York pursuant to [New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR")] § 301, which confers jurisdiction where a company 'has engaged in such a continuous and systematic course of doing business in New York that a finding of its presence in New York is warranted.'" Sonera Holding B.V. v. Cukurova HoldingA.S., 750 F.3d 221, 224 (2d Cir. 2014) (alterations adopted) (quoting Landoil Res. Corp. v. Alexander & Alexander Servs., 565 N.E.2d 488, 490 (N.Y. 1990). In Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014), however, the Supreme Court held that a state may only exercise general jurisdiction over a corporation where that corporation's affiliations with the [s]tate are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home in the forum [s]tate." Id. at 139 (alteration adopted) (quotations omitted). Daimler made clear that, except for an exceptional case, "a corporation is at home (and thus subject to general jurisdiction, consistent with due process) only in a state that is the company's formal place of incorporation or its principal place of business." DeLorenzo, 757 F. App'x at 8 (citing Daimler, 571 U.S. at 139 & n.19); see also Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 814 F.3d 619, 629 (2d Cir. 2016).
Here, the court does not have general personal jurisdiction over Amtrak under Rule 12(b)(2) because New York is neither the location of Amtrak's principal place of business nor the state where it is incorporated. See Daimler AG, 571 U.S. at 138-39; Brown, 814 F.3d at 629. Even conceding Plaintiff's argument that Amtrak does significant business in New York (Opp. at 5-6), Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts in her complaint to surmount the high bar set by Daimler and Brown for the "exceptional case" to the "essentially at home" standard. Brown 814 F.3d at 629.
Specific personal jurisdiction is governed by New York's long-arm statute, CPLR § 302(a), which confers personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary for certain acts by the non-domiciliary. CPLR § 302(a)(1)2 confers personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary who "transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state." "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." Eyeking, LLC v. JSS, LLC, 321 F. Supp. 3d 326, 331 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Sole Resorts, S.A. de C.V. v. Allure Resorts Mgmt., LLC, 450 F.3d 100, 103 (2d Cir. 2006)). "A suit will be deemed to have arisen out of a party's activities in New York if there is an articulable nexus, or a substantial relationship between the claim asserted and the actions that occurred in New York.'" Id. (quoting Best Van Lines, Inc, 490 F.3d at 246).
To reiterate, to prevail on a pre-discovery motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a Plaintiff only must make "non-conclusory fact-specific allegations or evidence showing that activity that constitutes the basis of jurisdiction has taken place." Chirag, 604 F. App'x at 19. Here, however, Plaintiff fails to meet that minimal burden. The complaint merely alleges that Amtrak "was and still is a company authorized to do business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York," and that Amtrak "was and still is a foreign corporation doing business under and by virtue of the laws of New York." (Co...
To continue reading
Request your trial