Luctama v. Knickerbocker

Background

Lawdy Luctama and Ashney Luctama brought a negligence action against Jeffrey Marks Knickerbocker arising from a September 20, 2016, car accident on Route 15 in Norwalk, Connecticut. They alleged that Knickerbocker rear-ended them because he failed to operate his vehicle safely. They alleged serious and permanent physical injuries and each sought $1,000,000.

The plaintiffs are citizens of New York, and Knickerbocker is a citizen of Connecticut. The plaintiffs filed the action on September 19, 2019. The court had subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.

Motion to dismiss

Knickerbocker moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court explained that it had to address personal jurisdiction first.

Personal jurisdiction

In a diversity case, the court first determines whether New York law permits jurisdiction and then, if necessary, determines whether jurisdiction would comply with constitutional due process. New York’s long-arm statute allows jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant in specified circumstances, including certain business transactions or tortious acts connected to New York.

The plaintiffs argued that jurisdiction existed because the court issued the summons and they served Knickerbocker at his Connecticut residence. The court rejected that argument, explaining that plaintiffs cannot create personal jurisdiction merely by filing suit in their chosen forum and serving a defendant outside the forum.

The plaintiffs also relied on Knickerbocker’s retention of a New York attorney and communications between the attorneys about the case and possible settlement. The court ruled that this representation was not sufficiently related to the plaintiffs’ claims, which arose solely from the Connecticut accident. It therefore did not satisfy New York’s long-arm statute.

The plaintiffs further argued that Knickerbocker had waived his jurisdictional defense by submitting an affidavit and driver’s-license copy and by not identifying the specific Rule 12 provisions in the motion. The court rejected that argument. It held that a court may consider affidavits when reviewing a personal-jurisdiction motion and that Knickerbocker timely raised the defense in his first response to the complaint.

Because the plaintiffs did not show that New York’s long-arm statute permitted jurisdiction, the court did not reach the constitutional due-process question. It concluded that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Knickerbocker and that the claims were subject to dismissal.

Transfer request and statute of limitations

The plaintiffs asked the court to transfer the action to the District of Connecticut rather than dismiss it. The court ruled that venue in the Southern District of New York was improper because Knickerbocker did not reside in New York, the accident occurred in Connecticut, and Knickerbocker was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York.

The court determined that the District of Connecticut was the only proper federal venue. It then applied Connecticut law to decide whether transfer would serve the interests of justice. Under the court’s description of Connecticut law, a personal-injury negligence action has a two-year statute of limitations, and a civil action is commenced by service on the defendant rather than by filing the complaint.

The court concluded that the limitations period expired on September 20, 2018, while the plaintiffs commenced this action on September 19, 2019. It rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that New York’s three-year limitations period should apply because they filed in New York. The court stated that the face of the complaint showed that the limitations period had run and characterized the action as a “sure loser.” It therefore declined to transfer the case to Connecticut.

Disposition

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti granted the motion to dismiss. The clerk was instructed to terminate the motion and close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.