My Goals Solutions, Inc. v. Coiana

Background

My Goals Solutions, Inc. sued Emmanuella Coiana and fictitious defendants, asserting claims for tortious interference with a contract and prospective economic advantage, trade libel and libel per se, and fraud by omission. My Goals invoked diversity jurisdiction. Coiana had worked for My Goals as a patient coordinator and was alleged to have arranged procedures that My Goals considered illegal. After My Goals terminated her, Coiana allegedly contacted My Goals employees, reported the procedures to Florida health authorities, and sought to persuade a My Goals doctor and another employee to stop working with My Goals.

Coiana moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, as well as under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3), and 12(b)(6). The court’s conclusion granted the motion for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the case without prejudice.

General Jurisdiction

My Goals argued that Coiana was subject to general jurisdiction in New York because she regularly communicated with people there while working for a New York-based company and because proposed employment terms referred to New York law and included an arbitration provision designating New York. The proposed terms were never signed.

The court held that these allegations did not establish general jurisdiction. My Goals conceded that Coiana was a Florida resident and did not allege that she was domiciled in New York. The court explained that an individual is ordinarily subject to general jurisdiction where she is domiciled, and that this was not an exceptional case in which contacts with New York were extensive enough to support jurisdiction despite a different domicile. Coiana’s communications with New York were insufficient, particularly because most occurred while she was acting for My Goals. The unsigned employment terms also did not establish consent to jurisdiction or an enforceable forum-selection clause.

Specific Jurisdiction

My Goals relied on Section 302(a)(2) of New York’s long-arm statute for specific jurisdiction, and did so only as to its tortious-interference claim. The court treated arguments based on other statutory provisions as abandoned because My Goals did not pursue them in its opposition. It also noted that Section 302(a)(2) excludes defamation claims and that My Goals did not connect its libel or fraud claims to a provision of the long-arm statute.

The court held that My Goals failed to make the required preliminary showing of specific jurisdiction. Section 302(a)(2) generally requires the defendant to commit the alleged tort in New York, either personally while physically present there or through an agent. My Goals did not allege that Coiana had ever entered New York and did not establish that she committed an alleged tort there. Its statement that the interference occurred in New York because it concerned a New York contract was not enough.

Disposition

The court granted Coiana’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the case without prejudice. It declined to grant leave to amend because My Goals had already amended its complaint after receiving notice of the jurisdictional issues, did not fix the identified defects, and did not request another opportunity to amend. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion and close the case. The court therefore did not reach the merits of My Goals’ underlying tort and fraud claims.