Perez v. Raul Alejandro Ocasio Ruiz

Background

Renelio Perez and Old Music Live sued Raúl Alejandro Ocasio Ruiz, professionally known as Rauw Alejandro, and 10 unidentified defendants. The claims are for defamation, defamation per se, and tortious interference with prospective business relations. The claims arise from the cancellation of a planned September 30, 2023, concert at Hallenstadion in Zurich, Switzerland.

According to the allegations, Perez and Old Music Live announced that the concert could not proceed because production equipment would not arrive on time due to problems with customs-clearance documents. Alejandro reposted that announcement with a warning in Spanish telling people in Zurich to be careful with the promoters, seek refunds, and demand more money. The plaintiffs alleged that the post referred to them, was inaccurate and defamatory, and caused backlash and interference with potential entertainment-business opportunities.

The plaintiffs initially filed the case in the Southern District of New York. The court later dismissed the original complaint without prejudice for failing to properly plead the citizenship of Old Music Live, described in the opinion as an LLC. The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint.

Motions and governing rule

Alejandro moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs filed a cross-motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which permits a court to dismiss a case filed in the wrong district or, in the interest of justice, transfer it to a district where it could have been brought.

Alejandro asserted that he was a resident of Puerto Rico and lacked sufficient contacts with New York. The plaintiffs accepted his sworn statements about his Puerto Rico residence and limited New York contacts and did not dispute that this court lacked personal jurisdiction over him or that venue was improper in New York.

In deciding whether transfer would serve the interest of justice, the court considered whether the case could properly be brought in the proposed district, whether the claims were clearly meritless, whether the plaintiffs had acted diligently in selecting the original forum, and whether dismissal could cause prejudice—particularly because the claims might become time-barred.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the District of Puerto Rico could exercise general personal jurisdiction over Alejandro because it was his domicile and residence. Venue would also be proper there. The court further found no clear defect on the face of the amended complaint that would make the claims obviously meritless. A more extensive merits review would have been inappropriate in the New York court, which lacked personal jurisdiction over Alejandro.

The court also found no indication that the plaintiffs knowingly chose the wrong district or acted in bad faith. The plaintiffs had initially relied on the alleged effects of Alejandro’s conduct in New York and stated that they had intended to seek limited jurisdictional discovery concerning his residence and contacts with New York. After receiving Alejandro’s declaration, they accepted his representations.

Finally, the court noted that dismissal could seriously prejudice the plaintiffs because Puerto Rico’s limitations period for tort actions is one year, and the alleged conduct occurred between September and November 2023. The court also noted that the parties had not completed a choice-of-law analysis and had based their merits arguments on New York law, even though Puerto Rico law could govern after transfer.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted the plaintiffs’ motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, close the New York case, and terminate the unresolved motion to dismiss on that court’s records. The court did not address Alejandro’s motion to dismiss.