Thani A.T. Al Thani v. Hanke

Background

Mohammed Thani A.T. Al Thani’s amended complaint alleged that Alan J. Hanke, IOLO Global LLC, and others induced him to enter two Management and Deposit Agreements and entrust $6.5 million for investment. It alleged that he received neither investment returns nor the principal. As to Amy Roy-Haeger, the amended complaint asserted claims for fraudulent inducement, fraud, and aiding and abetting fraud, alleging that she impersonated bank officials, participated in calls with Al Thani’s representatives, and supplied information that Hanke used to explain delays in payment.

Roy-Haeger, who the opinion states resides in and is a citizen of Florida, moved to dismiss the claims against her for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). In the alternative, she sought dismissal or transfer based on improper venue. The court had previously allowed discovery limited to whether Roy-Haeger controlled or directed Hanke’s activities in New York. After that discovery, the parties submitted additional briefing.

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority to decide claims against a particular defendant. Al Thani relied on New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules section 302(a)(2), which allows jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who, personally or through an agent, commits a tortious act in New York.

The court applied the New York test for attributing a New York co-conspirator’s conduct to an out-of-state defendant. The plaintiff had to make an initial showing of: a conspiracy; the defendant’s membership in it; a tortious act in New York; and an agency relationship between the out-of-state defendant and the person acting in New York. The court had already found that Al Thani made the first three showings. The remaining issue was whether the jurisdictional discovery showed an agency relationship between Roy-Haeger and Hanke.

The court found that Al Thani satisfied that requirement. First, Roy-Haeger knew about Hanke’s January 10, 2020 meeting in New York with Al Thani’s representative and provided Hanke with transaction details and updates for that meeting. Second, viewing the evidence in Al Thani’s favor, the court found that Roy-Haeger benefited from Hanke’s New York activities. The court considered her testimony about receiving a $15,000 commission payment, while noting that it was unclear in what capacity she received the money. The court also found that she benefited because Hanke’s activities allegedly furthered the overall scheme.

Third, the court found sufficient evidence that Hanke acted at Roy-Haeger’s direction, under her control, or at her request or on her behalf. Hanke asked her for support and answers before the New York meeting, and she provided updates that she acknowledged effectively told Hanke what to say to Al Thani’s representatives. The court concluded that these facts established specific jurisdiction over Roy-Haeger under section 302(a)(2), meaning jurisdiction connected to the defendant’s conduct related to the lawsuit.

The court also concluded that exercising jurisdiction complied with constitutional fairness requirements. It found that Roy-Haeger had sufficient purposeful contacts with New York and that the inconvenience of litigating there was outweighed by New York’s interest in addressing alleged tortious conduct in the state and Al Thani’s interest in pursuing one lawsuit against the defendants.

Venue

Venue concerns the federal district where a lawsuit may properly proceed. The court held that venue was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events underlying the claims occurred in New York. The amended complaint alleged multiple New York meetings at which Hanke made false or misleading statements about the investment and its expected returns. It also alleged that Roy-Haeger participated in telephone calls with Al Thani’s representatives in New York and made false or misleading statements about the investment.

The court explained that a defendant need not have been physically present in New York for the alleged events to support venue there. Because the alleged New York conduct was materially connected to the fraud claims, the court denied Roy-Haeger’s motion to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) and section 1406(a). It also denied her request to sever and transfer the claims under section 1406(a), and denied any request for severance or transfer under section 1404(a).

Disposition

The court denied Roy-Haeger’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction or to transfer venue. The court directed Roy-Haeger to file an answer by March 3, 2022. The opinion did not decide whether Al Thani ultimately would prevail on his fraud-related claims.