Connor v. Kotchen

Background

John M. Connor sued Daniel A. Kotchen, Kotchen & Low, LLP, Boies, Schiller, Flexner, LLP, and Matthew Henken after the defendants allegedly refused to pay him for expert-witness services in multidistrict antitrust litigation. Connor alleged breach of contract, unjust enrichment or quantum meruit, and constructive fraud. He filed the case in Indiana state court; the defendants removed it to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Connor then amended his complaint and moved to transfer the case to the District of Minnesota.

Failure to State a Claim

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court determined that Connor had pleaded a breach-of-contract claim only against Kotchen and Kotchen & Low. It denied dismissal of Count I because Kotchen had not shown that he could not be held liable on Kotchen & Low’s contract with OnPoint.

The court granted dismissal of Count II, the unjust-enrichment or quantum-meruit claim, because the express contract covered the issue of payment. It dismissed that count with prejudice because amendment would be futile. The court also granted dismissal of Count III, the constructive-fraud claim, with prejudice. It held that Connor alleged only arm’s-length contractual relationships and did not allege facts showing a fiduciary or confidential relationship. Henken and Boies were dismissed because no claims against them remained.

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority over a defendant. The court denied the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(2) motion as to Kotchen and Kotchen & Low. It found a prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction based on conduct connected to the lawsuit. Kotchen sought Connor’s services in Indiana, expected Connor’s work to continue from Indiana, traveled there to prepare Connor for a deposition, and defended that deposition there. The court treated those contacts as sufficient for Kotchen and, because Kotchen acted for Kotchen & Low, for the firm as well.

Transfer

The court granted Connor’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It found that venue and personal jurisdiction were proper in Minnesota because a substantial part of the related antitrust litigation occurred there. The court also relied on Minnesota’s connection to the underlying litigation and evidence expected from counsel involved in that litigation. It ordered the Clerk to transfer the remaining case to the District of Minnesota.

Disposition

The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part: Counts II and III were dismissed with prejudice; Henken and Boies were dismissed because no claims against them remained; and dismissal was denied as to Count I and as to Kotchen and Kotchen & Low. Connor’s motion to transfer was granted. His motion for leave to file a surreply was denied.