Loancare LLC v. Dimont & Associates, LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-09286
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Loancare v. Dimont, Judge Furman denied ICS’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction based on a sufficient initial showing involving a forum-selection clause.
Investor Claim Solutions, LLC, whose motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was denied; Loancare LLC, whose claims against ICS remain pending.
What happened
In Loancare LLC v. Dimont & Associates, LLC, defendant Investor Claim Solutions, LLC (ICS) asked the court to dismiss the case against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. Loancare opposed the motion.
The court denied ICS’s motion. It said the allegations in Loancare’s Fourth Amended Complaint made an initial showing that ICS was bound by the forum-selection clause in the parties’ Master Services Agreement. The court said ICS’s contrary arguments depended on factual disputes that could not be resolved at this stage.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered ICS to file an answer within 14 days. He also directed the parties to discuss possible limited or expedited discovery about personal jurisdiction at the initial pretrial conference, whose telephone start time was changed to 10:00 a.m. on March 1, 2023.
The detailed version
- Loancare LLC v. Dimont & Associates, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09286
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 9, 2023
Motion and Issue
Defendant Investor Claim Solutions, LLC (ICS) moved under the personal-jurisdiction rules to dismiss the claims against it. The issue was whether the court could exercise authority over ICS in this case.
Court’s Analysis
The court denied the motion, adopting the reasons substantially set out in Loancare’s opposition. It held that the well-pleaded allegations in the Fourth Amended Complaint made a prima facie showing—that is, an initial showing sufficient at this stage—that ICS was bound by the forum-selection clause in the Master Services Agreement. The court stated that ICS’s arguments to the contrary raised factual disputes that could not be resolved on the present record.
Orders
ICS was ordered to file an answer within 14 days of the opinion and order. Counsel were directed to discuss, and be prepared to address at the initial pretrial conference, whether and to what extent discovery concerning ICS’s personal jurisdiction should be separated or expedited. The court changed the telephone conference’s start time on March 1, 2023, to 10:00 a.m. The Clerk was directed to terminate the docket entry for ICS’s motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.