Owens v. Ronemus

Background

Eva Owens and Lara Rogers alleged that they are married and citizens of Washington. They sued Michael B. Ronemus over injuries Owens allegedly suffered while staying at “Creando Olas,” a rental property Ronemus owned in Troncones, Guerrero, Mexico. Owens alleged that a wooden stairway railing collapsed while she was leaning against it on April 12, 2021, causing her to fall and sustain severe injuries. She asserted negligence claims based on the design, construction, installation, maintenance, repair, and warning concerning the railing. Rogers asserted a loss-of-consortium claim based on Owens’s injuries.

The complaint relied on diversity jurisdiction and alleged personal jurisdiction in New York because Ronemus was a partner in a law firm headquartered in Manhattan. The opinion states that Ronemus has practiced law in New York, maintains a New York City office, and is a partner in Ronemus & Vilensky LLP. Ronemus stated that he resides in Connecticut and argued that his New York legal work was conducted through the partnership rather than individually.

Motions and parties’ positions

Ronemus moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and also argued that the applicable Mexican statute of limitations had expired. Owens and Rogers argued that New York had general personal jurisdiction over Ronemus under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 301 because of his New York legal practice. They also argued that service under § 308(2)—delivery of the summons to a suitable person at Ronemus’s New York business and mailing of the process—established jurisdiction. They disputed Ronemus’s statute-of-limitations argument as well.

The court had previously allowed thirty days of jurisdictional discovery concerning Ronemus’s contacts with New York. Because that discovery occurred, the court could consider materials outside the complaint, but the plaintiffs still had to make a preliminary showing supported by facts that, if accepted, would establish jurisdiction.

Personal jurisdiction analysis

The court first rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on service under § 308(2). Physical service on a defendant while the defendant is present in the state can establish “tag” jurisdiction. But the court found that Ronemus was not physically present in New York when the summons and complaint were delivered to a coworker at his place of business. Although § 308(2) calls this method “personal service,” it did not amount to physical service on Ronemus for purposes of tag jurisdiction.

The court then considered general jurisdiction. General jurisdiction allows a court to hear claims against a defendant even when the claims are unrelated to the defendant’s contacts with the forum. For an individual, the usual place for general jurisdiction is the person’s domicile. The court stated that only an exceptional case would support general jurisdiction over an individual who is domiciled elsewhere based on contacts with the forum.

The court recognized that Ronemus was licensed to practice law in New York, had a New York office, and appeared to be a name partner in a New York-registered law firm. But the court distinguished Ronemus’s contacts from the law firm’s contacts. It found that showing the firm was subject to general jurisdiction in New York did not establish that Ronemus himself was subject to that jurisdiction. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not provided enough information about how often Ronemus was present in New York or how extensive his individual contacts were. Because Ronemus was domiciled in Connecticut and also admitted to practice in Connecticut and Massachusetts, the court would not assume that his legal practice regularly brought him into New York.

Disposition

The court concluded that Owens and Rogers had not made the required preliminary showing that New York courts had personal jurisdiction over Ronemus. It granted Ronemus’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court did not decide the statute-of-limitations argument or the negligence and loss-of-consortium claims on their merits. The conclusion states that two letter motions were denied as moot, the motions were terminated, and the case was closed. The order does not expressly state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.