Ferris v. Pound Hounds Res-Q

Background

Shara Ferris sued Pound Hounds Res-Q, its executive director Donna Darrell, and Animal Care Centers of New York City (ACCNYC). Ferris brought the case individually and in connection with her daughter, Olivia Ferris. She alleged that Brock, a dog handled by ACCNYC and later adopted by Pound Hounds, attacked Olivia after Ferris brought the dog home. The opinion says the attack caused a crush-type injury and permanent scars.

Ferris alleged claims under the Massachusetts dog-bite statute, negligence, breach of contract, and defamation. Pound Hounds and Darrell also asserted counterclaims against Ferris for contributory negligence and common-law indemnity. The pending motions included ACCNYC’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, transfer; Ferris’s motion to amend; Pound Hounds and Darrell’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; and cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the dog-bite claim.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court applied the preliminary, or “prima facie,” method for deciding personal jurisdiction. Under that method, the court considered whether Ferris had offered specific facts that, if credited, would support jurisdiction, while not relying on conclusory allegations.

The court concluded that Massachusetts lacked general jurisdiction over ACCNYC because ACCNYC was incorporated, based, and exclusively licensed to operate in New York, and its Massachusetts contacts were not sufficiently continuous and substantial. The court also found no specific jurisdiction under the Massachusetts long-arm statute. ACCNYC had not itself conducted Massachusetts business or entered a Massachusetts contract connected to the claims. Ferris also had not alleged facts showing that ACCNYC caused a tort in Massachusetts or regularly conducted business there.

The court rejected Ferris’s argument that Pound Hounds’s contacts could be attributed to ACCNYC through an agency relationship. Ferris had not alleged facts showing that ACCNYC controlled Pound Hounds or that Pound Hounds acted with actual or apparent authority from ACCNYC. The court therefore did not reach the constitutional due-process question.

Transfer

Because Massachusetts lacked personal jurisdiction over ACCNYC, the court considered whether to dismiss the case or transfer it under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. It found that the Southern District of New York could have exercised both subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over all defendants. The court also found that transfer served the interests of justice, in part because dismissal could create statute-of-limitations problems and would require the parties to restart litigation after substantial discovery.

Disposition

The court granted Ferris’s second motion to amend her complaint. It granted ACCNYC’s motion to dismiss or transfer to the extent that it directed the Clerk to transfer the entire case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for adjudication. The court deemed Pound Hounds and Darrell’s jurisdictional motion moot, as well as the cross-motions for partial summary judgment and the other pending discovery and scheduling motions. The court did not decide the underlying claims.