Gentry v. Kaltner

Background

Jason Gentry sued George Kaltner, Complaint Dialer, Inc., doing business as Avatar Outsourcing, and Voiceless Technologies, Inc., also referred to in the amended complaint as Avatar Philippines. Gentry asserted claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a federal law commonly called RICO, and a state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

According to the amended complaint, Gentry worked for Avatar Philippines in the Philippines before his employment ended in 2014. He later helped establish Integricall, a call center in the Philippines. Gentry alleged that Kaltner and the corporate defendants paid Philippine National Bureau of Investigation officials to investigate him and Integricall, raid Integricall’s office, arrest and detain him, and pursue related proceedings. He also alleged that defendants directed a defamatory online article at him and caused emotional distress and financial losses.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which concerns personal jurisdiction over a defendant, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. They argued, among other things, that the amended complaint did not state claims against Voiceless, that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Voiceless, that the RICO and emotional-distress claims were insufficient, and that the case should be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows dismissal when another forum is substantially more appropriate.

Personal Jurisdiction Over Voiceless

The court focused first on personal jurisdiction because courts generally address their authority over the parties before reaching other issues. Gentry argued that Voiceless was the successor in interest to Avatar Philippines. Under the legal rule discussed by the court, a successor may be subject to jurisdiction based on the predecessor’s jurisdictional contacts, but only after successor liability is established.

The court found that Gentry’s amended complaint alleged that Voiceless was a successor but did not provide enough facts to determine whether successor liability actually applied. The defendants submitted a declaration stating that Voiceless was not a successor or formerly known entity of Avatar Philippines and that the entities existed at the same time. The court concluded that the competing information created a factual dispute better addressed through jurisdictional discovery.

Gentry also argued that jurisdiction could exist under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), based on Voiceless’s contacts with the United States as a whole. The court did not decide that argument. It noted that Rule 4(k)(2) applies only when jurisdiction is unavailable in every state and that Gentry had not addressed whether New York’s long-arm statute supplied jurisdiction.

Other Issues and Ruling

The court declined to consider the defendants’ declaration when evaluating the Rule 12(b)(6) arguments, although it could consider the declaration for the personal-jurisdiction motion. It could take judicial notice of publicly filed corporate documents, but it did not consider a Los Angeles Times article submitted by Gentry as evidence of the truth of the article’s contents.

The court held that limited jurisdictional discovery was appropriate because Gentry had alleged successor status, the relevant facts were disputed, and the allegations were not frivolous. The court authorized discovery concerning whether Voiceless was a successor in interest to Avatar Philippines within 60 days of the Opinion and Order’s date.

Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Within 30 days after the jurisdictional-discovery deadline, the defendants could renew the motion; Gentry would have 14 days to respond, and the defendants could file a reply seven days later. The court did not decide whether Gentry’s RICO or intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims ultimately succeed.