Laba v. JBO Worldwide Supply Pty Ltd

Background

Remi Laba sued JBO Worldwide Supply Pty Ltd based on a finder’s fee agreement that Laba claimed the parties had made. JBO contended that the agreement was forged. After earlier rulings concerning personal jurisdiction and discovery, JBO filed an answer, counterclaims, and a third-party complaint. The third-party complaint alleged that Remi Laba, Martin Bergh, Wayne Bebb, Iain Banner, Rooibos Limited, Naturally Out of Africa Perfectly Natural Pty Ltd, NOOA California, LLC, and John Does 1-5 participated in a broad conspiracy to steal JBO’s trade secrets and interfere with its prospective business.

The third-party defendants separately moved to dismiss on personal-jurisdiction, venue, and substantive grounds.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court held that the third-party defendants lacked sufficient contacts with New York for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction. It stated that Rooibos Limited and Naturally Out of Africa Perfectly Natural Pty Ltd were South African companies without operations in New York, while NOOA California, LLC was a California limited liability company with no New York operations. The court rejected the argument that an address associated with a law firm working for NOOA and NOOA USA established jurisdiction.

The court also found that the individual third-party defendants—Martin Bergh, Iain Banner, and Wayne Bebb—were not New York residents, did not own property or regularly conduct business in New York, and had contacts that were insufficient to establish jurisdiction. Their alleged travel to New York in 2017 and 2019 was limited, and the court noted that JBO did not allege those trips were connected to the alleged conspiracy, which allegedly began in April 2020. The court also stated that documents identified by JBO had been submitted by Laba, not by the individual third-party defendants.

The court rejected jurisdiction based on a conspiracy theory because the third-party complaint did not provide specific details of acts connected to the third-party defendants or to New York. The court characterized the allegations that the third-party defendants acted together with Laba as conclusory.

Forum Non Conveniens

The court separately held that dismissal was appropriate under forum non conveniens, a doctrine allowing a court to dismiss when another adequate forum is better suited to resolve the dispute. The court found that none of the third-party defendants was based in New York, that most were based in South Africa, and that JBO itself was a South African entity. It concluded that South Africa was an adequate forum, particularly because related litigation involving JBO and some third-party defendants had occurred in South African courts.

The court also concluded that the dispute principally involved South African companies or individuals and business operations in South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and California. It found no reason that a New York forum would better serve the public interest than a South African forum.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss the third-party complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over any of the third-party defendants and on forum non conveniens grounds. The court expressly stated that it did not reach the Rule 12(b)(6) arguments, which asserted that the complaint failed to state legally sufficient claims. It canceled the January 31, 2022 oral argument and directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 147.