Laba v. JBO Worldwide Supply Pty Ltd
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:20-cv-03443
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Laba v. JBO Worldwide Supply Pty Ltd, Judge Hellerstein denied Georges Kern’s reconsideration motion, leaving intact the prior refusal to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Georges Kern, whose motion for reconsideration was denied; the prior denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction remained in place.
What happened
In Laba v. JBO Worldwide Supply Pty Ltd, third-party defendant Georges Kern asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Kern argued that the court had not previously decided whether exercising jurisdiction over him would comply with the Due Process Clause. He also argued that his contacts with the forum were insufficient and that he was differently situated from alleged co-conspirators.
Judge Hellerstein denied the motion for reconsideration. He found no clear error or manifest injustice because the third-party complaint plausibly alleged a conspiracy, acts in the forum supporting that conspiracy, and Kern’s membership in it; under the court’s stated approach, Kern need not have personally acted in the forum.
The detailed version
- Laba v. JBO Worldwide Supply Pty Ltd · No. 1:20-cv-03443
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Sept. 29, 2022
Background
Third-party Defendant Georges Kern moved for reconsideration of the court’s September 21, 2022 order, which had denied his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is the court’s authority to exercise power over a defendant. Kern argued that the court had rejected his earlier motion because the issues had already been decided, but had not addressed whether exercising jurisdiction over him was consistent with the Due Process Clause.
Kern did not identify an intervening change in controlling law or new evidence. Instead, he argued that reconsideration was needed to correct a clear error and prevent manifest injustice. He contended that he was differently situated from his alleged co-conspirators and that his contacts with the forum were insufficient to support specific personal jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis
The court disagreed. It stated that it had already held that the Third-Party Complaint plausibly alleged a conspiracy and overt acts taken in the forum in furtherance of that conspiracy. The court also found that Kern was plausibly alleged to be a member of the conspiracy. Based on conspiracy jurisdiction, the court stated that it could exercise personal jurisdiction over Kern even if he had not personally performed an act in the forum.
Disposition
The court found no clear error in its prior ruling and no manifest injustice that would result. It therefore denied Kern’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 286.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.