Bartosiewicz v. Nelsen

Background

Robert J. Bartosiewicz sued Greg Nelsen over a vehicle transaction. Under a February 19, 2019 sales agreement, Bartosiewicz was to receive a black 1971 Plymouth Barracuda from Nelsen in exchange for a 1971 brown Plymouth Barracuda, a 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle, and a 1971 “Plum Crazy” Dodge Challenger. The vehicles exchanged under the agreement were valued at $1,025,000 in total.

The agreement described the vehicles as “numbers matching.” After the black Barracuda arrived in Rochester, New York, an inspection found that its vehicle identification numbers matched but that die lot numbers on several parts did not correspond to the vehicle’s production period. Bartosiewicz informed Nelsen that he would not accept the vehicle. Nelsen offered to reduce the price by $45,000 and said he had sold the three vehicles received in the exchange. Bartosiewicz later resold the black Barracuda for $700,000.

Bartosiewicz asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, unjust enrichment, and fraud. Nelsen moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3). Both parties alternatively requested transfer to the District of Minnesota if the case could not proceed in the Western District of New York.

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority over a defendant. The court found that Nelsen was a Minnesota resident and was not subject to general jurisdiction in New York. It also found no specific jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute.

The court concluded that Nelsen’s New York contacts were minimal. Nelsen countersigned the agreement in Minnesota, never traveled to New York, and exchanged the vehicles with Bartosiewicz or his employee in Minnesota. The agreement did not require notices or payments to be sent to New York, and it made the buyer responsible for shipment or delivery. The court found that a telephone call, an electronic contract with a New York resident, and Nelsen’s knowledge that the vehicle would be taken to New York did not establish that Nelsen purposefully engaged in activities in New York.

The court also rejected jurisdiction based on the alleged fraud. It found that any relevant representations were made outside New York and that the economic injury occurred where the events causing the injury occurred, rather than where Bartosiewicz experienced the resulting financial loss. The court therefore concluded that New York had neither a statutory nor a constitutional basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over Nelsen.

Venue

Venue is the proper federal district for a lawsuit. The court found venue improper in the Western District of New York because Nelsen was not a resident of that district and a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying the claims did not occur there. The court explained that the significant events—including the vehicle exchange and other relevant conduct—occurred in Minnesota.

Disposition

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district when transfer is in the interest of justice. Although the parties’ transfer requests did not comply with the court’s local motion rules and were sparsely supported, the court found that Nelsen resided in the District of Minnesota, that substantial events occurred there, and that both parties requested transfer if New York was improper.

The court granted the parties’ requests for transfer of venue and directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the matter to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The order did not decide the merits of Bartosiewicz’s claims.