Dynamic Star, LLC v. Zackson

Background

The dispute arose from a pending Connecticut divorce proceeding involving Brad Zackson and Dr. Judith Zackson. Brad Zackson was described as a senior executive at Dynamic Star, LLC, a real estate development firm based in New York, New York. According to Dynamic’s complaint, Dr. Zackson bought at least one electronic device in 2022 to secretly record Brad Zackson while they were separated but living in the same house in Greenwich, Connecticut. Dr. Zackson admitted placing one device in his living area without his knowledge or consent, but said she could not make it work, it was discovered promptly, and she did not hear or successfully record anything.

Dynamic alleged that Dr. Zackson bought other recording devices and that recordings might contain sensitive Dynamic business information and private communications. Dynamic interpreted a statement by Dr. Zackson to, or in the presence of, Dynamic’s president, Gary Segal, as a threat to release recordings unless Segal paid her. Dynamic initially sued in New York state court, seeking a permanent injunction, statutory relief under federal and Connecticut law, and damages for tortious interference with business relations. It also sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction barring Dr. Zackson from disseminating or using recordings without court permission. The state court issued the temporary restraining order, after which Dr. Zackson removed the case to federal court.

Motion and jurisdiction analysis

Dr. Zackson moved to dismiss on several grounds, including that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over her. Personal jurisdiction is the court’s authority to exercise power over a defendant. The court addressed only that issue.

To survive a motion to dismiss based on personal jurisdiction, Dynamic had to make a preliminary showing by alleging facts that, if accepted as true, would establish jurisdiction. The court examined New York’s long-arm statute, which lists four ways to exercise specific personal jurisdiction. It focused on two provisions.

First, New York law allows jurisdiction when a defendant commits a tortious act in New York. The court explained that the alleged wrongdoer generally must have been physically present in New York for this provision to apply. Dynamic’s complaint mentioned a tracking device found on a fence at Brad Zackson’s new residence in Bedford, New York. But the complaint did not allege that Dr. Zackson placed the device there, that she was involved in placing it, or that she did so in New York. The court therefore found no sufficient allegation that she committed a tortious act while physically present in New York.

Second, New York law can allow jurisdiction when a defendant commits a tort outside New York that causes injury to a person or property in New York, if the defendant regularly conducts or solicits business in New York. The court rejected Dr. Zackson’s assertion that she did not regularly conduct or solicit business there because Dynamic submitted evidence that she marketed herself to New York clients as a New York psychologist, listed a New York psychologist’s license in advertisements and on websites, and listed her firm’s New York City address in online directories.

The court nevertheless found the second provision unsatisfied because Dynamic did not adequately allege that the original events causing its injury occurred in New York. Dynamic alleged that Dr. Zackson recorded Brad Zackson in his Connecticut living area, did not know when or where else she might have recorded him, and feared harm if business conversations were disclosed. Although Dynamic alleged that one recording involved Brad Zackson and a business associate, it did not identify the associate, state where that person was located, or allege that the conversation was recorded in New York. The court concluded that Dynamic had not alleged that any of Dr. Zackson’s alleged tortious conduct occurred in New York.

Ruling

The court concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Dr. Judith Zackson. It therefore granted Dr. Zackson’s motion to dismiss. The opinion did not address her other dismissal arguments.