Don King Productions, Inc. v. World Boxing Association

Background

Don King Productions, Inc. and Trevor Bryan sued the World Boxing Association for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. They alleged that the Association failed to enforce its rules governing boxing bouts and failed to return warranty deposits that Don King Productions had paid in advance for two fights that never took place. The opinion states that the fights were not scheduled to occur in New York.

The Association moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue, and Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join a necessary party. The plaintiffs argued that the Association had waived or forfeited its personal-jurisdiction defense, that personal jurisdiction and venue were proper, and that the additional party did not have to be joined.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court held that the Association had neither waived nor forfeited its personal-jurisdiction defense. It had raised the defense when it first moved to dismiss the original complaint, continued to deny the relevant allegations, and expressly objected to jurisdiction and venue in a joint letter to the court. The court found no intentional relinquishment of the defense and no failure to assert it at a timely opportunity.

The plaintiffs relied on New York Civil Practice Law and Rules section 302(a)(1). The court nevertheless held that the Association was not subject to general personal jurisdiction in New York. The Association was incorporated in Washington and had its principal place of business in Panama, so it was not “at home” in New York under the court’s analysis. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Venue

The court also held that venue was improper. Venue was not proper under the provision concerning where a defendant resides because the Association was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York. Venue was not proper under the provision concerning where a substantial part of the events occurred because the plaintiffs did not allege that the bouts giving rise to the claims were scheduled to take place in New York. Venue was also not proper under the fallback provision because the Association could be sued in another district, including Washington, its state of incorporation, and was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York.

The court granted the motion to dismiss for improper venue. Because it dismissed for both lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, it did not reach the Association’s alternative argument that the plaintiffs had failed to join a necessary party.

Disposition

Judge Hellerstein granted the motion to dismiss as to lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue and denied it as to the plaintiffs’ failure to join a necessary party. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.