Oppedisano v. Zur

Background

Vincenzo Oppedisano’s amended complaint alleged that his New York corporation, Sano Aviation Corporation, owned Sano Jet Center, a fixed-based operator in Florida. Lynda Zur disputed those assertions and represented that a trust had been created, that Oppedisano had signed an agreement concerning Sano Aviation’s shares, and that the company had been domesticated in Florida.

Zur filed a letter-motion seeking limited jurisdictional discovery. She requested subpoenas for deposition testimony and documents from Connors & Sullivan, PC, and accountant Salvatore Ceravolo, as well as a document request to Oppedisano. She sought this discovery in anticipation of a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.

Arguments and legal standard

Oppedisano argued that Sano Aviation’s corporate status was unrelated to whether the court had personal jurisdiction over Zur or whether venue was proper. He also argued that the relevant inquiry for a planned motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) was whether Zur—not Sano Aviation—was subject to personal jurisdiction in the Southern District of New York.

The court explained that a defendant may seek dismissal under Rule 12(b)(2) when the court lacks personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff bears the burden of showing jurisdiction, but at this stage generally needs only a prima facie showing—an initial showing supported by facts that, if credited, would establish jurisdiction. Courts may consider materials outside the pleadings, and a court has broad discretion to allow jurisdictional discovery when the jurisdictional allegations are insufficiently developed.

Ruling

The court found that the requested discovery concerning whether Sano Aviation had been domesticated in Florida in 2011 was not warranted at that time. It stated that it tended to agree with Oppedisano that the company’s Florida status was not dispositive of whether the court had personal jurisdiction over Zur. The court therefore declined Zur’s request for limited jurisdictional discovery for the purpose of defeating personal jurisdiction.

The court DENIED Zur’s application for limited jurisdictional discovery. Because Oppedisano had filed an amended complaint, the court allowed Zur, by September 30, 2020, to answer, file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that she would rely on her initially filed motion to dismiss. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the pending letter motion.