Owens v. Ronemus

1

EVA OWENS and LARA ROGERS, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL B. RONEMUS, Defendant.

No. 23 Civ. 3036 (PGG)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

June 24, 2024

ORDER

PAUL G. GARDEPHE, U.S.D.J.

This action arises out of injuries sustained by Plaintiff Eva Owens while residing at a property owned by Defendant Michael B. Ronemus. Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendant Ronemus for negligence and loss of consortium. (Cmplt. (Dkt No. 2) ¶¶ 21-32)

Defendant Ronemus has moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 42) For the reasons stated below, Defendant's Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss will be granted.

BACKGROUND

I. FACTS^[1]

Plaintiffs Eva Owens and Lara Rogers are married and allege that they are citizens of the State of Washington. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant Ronemus - who is a partner in a law firm headquartered in Manhattan - has his “principal place of business” in Manhattan.^[2] (Cmplt. (Dkt. No. 2) ¶¶ 1-4; Fisher Decl. (Dkt. No. 44) ¶ 9) Subject matter jurisdiction is premised on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and personal jurisdiction over the Defendant is premised on the fact that he is a partner in a law firm headquartered in Manhattan. (Cmplt. (Dkt. No. 2) ¶ 5; Fisher Decl. (Dkt. No. 44) ¶¶ 8-9)

Defendant owns “a rental property known as ‘Creando Olas' [] in the Village of Troncones, State of Guerrero, Mexico.” (Id. ¶¶ 7-8) Plaintiff Owens found an advertisement for the property online and reserved it “for the week of April 10, 2021 through April 17, 2021,” “pa[ying] rent to the defendant for the rental property.” (Id. ¶¶ 14-15) On April 12, 2021, “while the plaintiff Eva Owens was leaning against a wooden stairway railing on the outside edge of the stairs, the stairway railing collapsed causing Ms. Owens to fall to the ground below . .. [and] sustain[] severe personal injuries and damages.” (Id. ¶¶ 18-19)

Plaintiff Owens alleges that Defendant Ronemus acted negligently in “improperly designing, constructing, installing, servicing, repairing, and failing to warn of the dangers associated with the subject stairway railing.” (Id. ¶¶ 21-27) Owens seeks “up to” $5 million in damages. (Id. ¶ 28)

Plaintiff Rogers brings a loss of consortium claim against Defendant, alleging that Eva Owens is her wife and that by reason of Owens' injuries, Rogers has been - and will continue to be - “deprived of the services, society, companionship, consortium and support of' Owens. (Id. ¶¶ 29-31) Rogers seeks “up to” $2 million in damages, (Id. ¶ 32)

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Complaint was filed on April 11,2023. (Cmplt. (Dkt. No. 1))

Defendant filed an Answer on June 15, 2023, asserting several affirmative defenses, including that “[p]ursuant to New York choice of law principles, the law of New York is inapplicable and Mexican law should be applied in this case.” (Answer (Dkt. No. 12) at 4)^[3] In his Answer, Defendant “reserve[d] the right to assert additional defenses.” (Id. at 5)

In a July 27, 2023 pre-motion letter, Defendant contends that this case should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. (July 27, 2023 Def. Ltr. (Dkt. No. 16))

On October 30, 2023, this Court ordered the parties to conduct thirty days of jurisdictional discovery. (Dkt. No. 27)

Following jurisdictional discovery, Defendant requested leave to file a motion to dismiss premised both on lack of personal jurisdiction and the statute of limitations. (Dec. 20, 2023 Def. Ltr. (Dkt. No. 30)) This Court granted that application. (Dkt. No. 31)

On January 25, 2024, Defendant filed his motion to dismiss. (Def. Mot. (Dkt. No. 42))

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that this action must be dismissed because (1) this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him, and (2) the applicable Mexican statute of limitations for this action has expired. (Def. Br. (Dkt. No. 42-7)) As to personal jurisdiction, Plaintiffs respond that this Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to New York's long-arm statute, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 301. (Pltf. Opp. (Dkt. No. 46) at 7-16) As to Defendant's statute of limitations argument, Plaintiffs contend that (1) Ronemus may not raise it because he did not plead it as an affirmative defense, and (2) in any event Defendant has misconstrued the length of the applicable statute of limitations. (Id. at 16-18)

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Rule 12(b)(2)

“The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant when served with a Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss.” Whitaker v. Am. Telecasting, Inc., 261 F.3d 196, 208 (2d Cir. 2001). The nature of plaintiffs burden “varies depending on the procedural posture of the litigation.” Ball v. Metallurgie Hoboken-Overpelt, S.A., 902 F.2d 194, 197 (2d Cir. 1990). Prior to discovery, a plaintiff may carry this burden “by pleading in good faith . . . legally sufficient allegations of jurisdiction. At that preliminary stage, the plaintiffs prima facie showing may be established solely by allegations.” Id. “In contrast, when an evidentiary hearing is held, the plaintiff must demonstrate the court's personal jurisdiction over the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 567 (2d Cir. 1996).

“Where as here . .. the parties have conducted . . . discovery regarding the defendant's contacts with the forum state, but no evidentiary hearing has been held[,] the plaintiffs prima facie showing, necessary to defeat a jurisdiction testing motion, must include an averment of facts that, if credited ..., would suffice to establish jurisdiction over the defendant.” Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779, 784 (2d Cir. 1999) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff may make this showing through “affidavits and supporting materials.” S. New England Tel. Co. v. Glob. NAPs Inc., 624 F.3d 123, 138 (2d Cir. 2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, where jurisdictional discovery has taken place, the Court may consider materials outside of the pleadings, but the materials must be construed “in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, resolving all doubts in their favor.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Ziegler, Ziegler & Assocs. LLP v. China Digital Media Corp., 05 Civ. 4960 (LAP), 2010 WL 2835567, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2010) (same).

The determination of whether a federal court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant involves a “two-part inquiry.” Metro. Life Ins., 84 F.3d at 567. The court “must [first] determine whether the plaintiff has shown that the defendant is amenable to service of process under the forum state's laws.” Id. The court “must [then] assess whether the court's assertion of jurisdiction under these laws comports with the requirements of due process.” Id.; see also Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158, 163-64 (2d Cir. 2010) (“To determine personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary in a case involving a federal question, the Court must engage in a two-step analysis. First, we apply the forum state's long-arm statute. . . . If the long-arm statute permits personal jurisdiction, the second step is to analyze whether personal jurisdiction comports with the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. This analysis has two related components: the ‘minimum contacts' inquiry and the ‘reasonableness' inquiry.” (citations omitted)).

“[C]ontacts with [a] forum may confer two types of jurisdiction - specific and general.” In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 376 F.Supp.2d 449, 453 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (footnote omitted). “Specific jurisdiction exists when a forum ‘exercises personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum.'” Id. (quoting Metro. Life Ins., 84 F.3d at 567-68). “[G]eneral jurisdiction exists only when a [defendant]'s contacts with a state are ‘so “continuous and systematic” as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.'” Sonera Holding B.V. v. Cukurova Holding A.S., 750 F.3d 221, 225 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A, v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)). “A court with general jurisdiction over a [defendant] may adjudicate all claims against that [defendant] - even those entirely unrelated to the defendant's contacts with the state.” Id.

IL ANALYSIS

A. Whether General Jurisdiction Exists

Defendant Ronemus states that he “resides in the state of Connecticut” and that “a non-resident individual cannot be subject to general jurisdiction under CPLR § 301 unless he or she is doing business individually, and not on behalf of a corporation [or other business entity].” (Def. Br. (Dkt. No. 42-7) at 7-8) Defendant further argues that personal service - as effected in this case - does not confer general jurisdiction over him. (Id.)

Plaintiffs counter that Ronemus is subject to general jurisdiction in New York “by reason of his having his principal place of business in the City of New York.” (Pltf. Opp. (Dkt No. 46) at 7) In the alternative, Plaintiffs argue that “general personal jurisdiction is proper under CPLR 308(2) with service of the summons and complaint in New York upon a suitable person at Defendant's actual place of business in New York City and the mailing of the process in New York to Defendant at his actual place of business in New York City.” (Id.)

1. “Personal Service”

As an initial matter, this Court must decide whether personal service under CPLR § 308(2) provides a court with general jurisdiction over the served defendant. CPLR § 308(2) states that

[p]ersonal service upon a natural person shall be made ... by delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable age and

...