WFCM 2016-LC25 West Bay Area Boulevard, LLC v. Tyler
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-08865
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In WFCM v. Tyler, Judge Broderick granted reconsideration but denied Tyler’s personal-jurisdiction dismissal motion because her guaranty consented to New York jurisdiction.
Cheryl Tyler remains subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction, and WFCM 2016-LC25 West Bay Area Boulevard, LLC’s lawsuit seeking recovery under the guaranty was not dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
What happened
WFCM 2016-LC25 West Bay Area Boulevard, LLC v. Tyler concerns whether the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Cheryl Tyler in a lawsuit seeking recovery under a guaranty agreement.
Tyler asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision treating her jurisdiction motion as abandoned. She argued that a New York statute did not apply because the guaranty called for Texas law. The guaranty also stated that the guarantor submitted to the jurisdiction of courts in New York City.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted reconsideration and denied Tyler’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. He ruled that Tyler consented to jurisdiction by signing the guaranty’s forum-selection provision and that the New York statute did not prevent enforcement of that provision.
The detailed version
- WFCM 2016-LC25 West Bay Area Boulevard, LLC v. Tyler · No. 1:21-cv-08865
- Vernon Broderick
- Dec. 7, 2022
Background
WFCM 2016-LC25 West Bay Area Boulevard, LLC sued Cheryl Tyler to recover under a guaranty agreement. The plaintiff alleged that Tyler signed the guaranty with a co-guarantor, William Kornbluth, failed to respond to a payment demand, and defaulted on her obligations. The guaranty provided that legal proceedings relating to it could be brought in any federal or state court in New York City and that the guarantor irrevocably submitted to the jurisdiction of any such court.
Tyler filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which allows dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. After the parties said briefing on the motion was complete, the court mistakenly treated Tyler’s motion as abandoned because it believed she intended to litigate the case on the merits. Tyler promptly moved for reconsideration and informed the court that she did not intend to abandon the jurisdiction motion.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a district court may reconsider its own non-final orders. Because Tyler timely clarified that she intended to pursue her motion, the court granted reconsideration and considered the fully briefed motion to dismiss.
The court held that Tyler consented to personal jurisdiction through the guaranty’s forum-selection provision. Tyler’s signature appeared below language stating that the guarantor submitted to the jurisdiction of courts in New York City. The court concluded that this was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.
Tyler’s main argument was that New York General Obligations Law § 5-1402 did not apply because the guaranty selected Texas law rather than New York law. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the statute itself says it does not affect enforcement of a separate contractual choice-of-forum provision. The court also said Tyler improperly treated the statute’s conditions as necessary for personal jurisdiction when they were only one way to establish jurisdiction. The court did not consider additional arguments Tyler raised for the first time in her reply brief.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted Tyler’s motion for reconsideration and denied her motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The clerk was directed to terminate the reconsideration motion at docket entry 27.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.