Paciotti S.p.A. v. Dellamoda, Inc.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-05488
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Paciotti S.p.A. v. Dellamoda, Judge McMahon found no New York jurisdiction or venue and allowed papers on possible transfer.
Paciotti S.p.A.’s unpaid-invoice claim against Dellamoda, Inc. could not proceed in the Southern District of New York based on the jurisdiction and venue findings. The parties were given an opportunity to seek transfer to the Central District of California, but the opinion did not order transfer or state that the case was dismissed.
What happened
Paciotti S.p.A. sued Dellamoda, Inc. over more than $83,000 in unpaid shoe invoices. Paciotti argued that Dellamoda’s New York sales and alleged New York warehouse connected the dispute to New York.
The court found that the unpaid-invoice claim did not arise from Dellamoda’s New York activities or alleged warehouse. It also found that New York was not a proper venue because the relevant events and unpaid money were not located there.
Judge McMahon did not decide the claim’s merits or state that the case was dismissed. Instead, the court gave the parties ten days to file papers if they wanted the case transferred to the Central District of California rather than dismissed.
The detailed version
- Paciotti S.p.A. v. Dellamoda, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-05488
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 16, 2019
Background
Paciotti S.p.A., an Italian corporation that designs and produces shoes, brought an account stated claim against Dellamoda, Inc., a California corporation and luxury boutique. Paciotti alleged that Dellamoda owed more than $83,000 on three unpaid invoices dated September 8, 2016, January 25, 2017, and April 13, 2017.
Dellamoda moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Paciotti relied on Dellamoda’s sale of five pairs of Paciotti shoes to a New York customer in December 2017 and allegations that Dellamoda maintained a New York warehouse storing Paciotti shoes. Dellamoda denied owning or operating a warehouse outside California. Its website stated that most merchandise shipped from Los Angeles and identified several brands shipped from New York, but did not identify Paciotti as one of them.
Personal Jurisdiction
The court held that Paciotti failed to make the required initial showing of personal jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute. The claim arose from Dellamoda’s alleged failure to pay invoices for shoes purchased from Paciotti, not from Dellamoda’s later sale of shoes to the New York customer. The invoices were issued more than eight months before that sale.
The court also rejected jurisdiction based on the alleged New York warehouse. The website did not establish that Paciotti shoes were stored or shipped from New York. Even assuming that some of the unpaid-for shoes had been stored there, the court held that the storage would have been incidental and that the claim did not arise from it. The court therefore did not reach whether jurisdiction would satisfy constitutional due-process requirements.
Venue
The court held that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York. Paciotti’s argument that Dellamoda resided in New York for venue purposes depended on Dellamoda being subject to personal jurisdiction there, which Paciotti had not established. The court also found that none of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in New York and that the unpaid money was not located there.
Transfer Instead of Dismissal
The court explained that federal law allows a case to be transferred to a proper district when doing so serves the interests of justice, even if the current court lacks personal jurisdiction. It identified the Central District of California as a possible proper forum because Dellamoda is incorporated and headquartered in California and the case could fall within that court’s jurisdiction.
The parties had not briefed the usual transfer factors. The court therefore gave them ten days to file papers if they wanted to pursue transfer instead of dismissal. The conclusion states that the court lacked personal jurisdiction and that venue was improper, but the opinion does not state that the complaint was dismissed or that transfer was ordered.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.