Ryzhov v. $5

Background

Evgeny Ryzhov filed motions for default judgment against Konstantin Malofeyev and Tsargrad Media, identified as the only two defendants remaining in the case. A hearing on those motions had been scheduled for June 26, 2024. The court explained that it could not enter default judgment unless it had personal jurisdiction, meaning legal authority over the defendants.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court expressed skepticism that it had personal jurisdiction over Malofeyev and Tsargrad Media. It considered both general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. General jurisdiction usually requires affiliations with New York so constant and pervasive that a defendant is essentially at home there. The court said Ryzhov’s allegations appeared to fall well short of that standard and did not appear to establish an exceptional case.

Specific jurisdiction requires a sufficient connection between New York, the defendants’ conduct, and the claims. The court said that the fact that Ryzhov may have felt economic or other injury in New York was not enough, because the relevant injury location is generally the place of the event that caused the injury. Although Ryzhov discussed activities in New York, the court was doubtful that he had shown a substantial relationship between those activities and his claims.

The court also found Ryzhov’s reliance on 18 U.S.C. § 1965(b) apparently misplaced. According to the opinion, that provision does not automatically give a court nationwide personal jurisdiction over every defendant in a civil racketeering case. The court further stated that a case Ryzhov cited concerned the geographic reach of racketeering law, not personal jurisdiction.

Order

The court stated that it could dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction because Ryzhov had already addressed the issue at length. But, taking account of Ryzhov’s self-represented status, the court gave him one additional opportunity to make the required showing. The court ordered Ryzhov to file a written memorandum of law, no longer than ten pages, by July 10, 2024, explaining why the court has personal jurisdiction over Malofeyev and Tsargrad Media.

The court stated that if Ryzhov did not file by that date or did not show good cause, the case may be dismissed without further notice for lack of personal jurisdiction. It postponed the default-judgment hearing without setting a new date. The court reserved judgment on the merits of Ryzhov’s claims and on whether his requested damages were proper, while noting significant doubts about both issues. It also ordered Ryzhov to serve the order on Tsargrad Media using the court-approved alternate methods and on Malofeyev by mail to his last known residence, followed by filing proof of service.