National Bank of Kuwait, S.A.K.P., New York Branch v. Parker

Background

Bradley Parker moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 to dismiss the action brought by National Bank of Kuwait, S.A.K.P., New York Branch. Parker argued that the plaintiff had not filed a complaint or another pleading stating a claim, that venue was improper, that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him, and that he had not been properly served.

The opinion states that the case had been removed from state court. It also states that the dispute was based on an instrument for the payment of money only and that the relevant agreement contained a forum-selection clause providing for personal jurisdiction in New York.

The Court’s Analysis

Pleading. The court rejected Parker’s argument that the action had to be dismissed because no complaint had been filed. Under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 3213, when an action is based on an instrument for the payment of money only, the plaintiff may serve a summons, a motion for summary judgment, and supporting papers instead of a complaint. The court concluded that the papers filed in this case fulfilled the notice function that a pleading would ordinarily serve. It also noted that, because the case was removed, the federal court had to recognize the procedural steps completed in state court.

Venue. The court concluded that venue was proper. In a removed action, the removal statute governs the federal district in which the case is heard. The court found that the plaintiff had made the required showing because the case had been removed from a state court located within the Southern District of New York.

Personal jurisdiction. The court concluded that New York had personal jurisdiction because the agreement at issue contained a forum-selection clause providing for personal jurisdiction in New York. The court stated that Parker had not identified a valid reason not to enforce that clause.

Service. Parker asserted, without further explanation, that no complaint or other pleading had been served on him. The court found that the plaintiff had submitted evidence showing service of the required filings through certified mail, as agreed in the guaranty, and through personal service. Parker did not provide evidence showing otherwise or explain why the service was insufficient.

Disposition

The court denied Parker’s motion to dismiss and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Docket 5. The opinion does not clearly show the judge’s name in the supplied text; the signature appears OCR-corrupted, so the judge is identified here as the court.