Kornea v. Miller
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-04454
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Kornea v. Miller: Judge Engelmayer dismissed Patricia Miller and Ahmed Raed as defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied the motion to strike.
Patricia Miller and Ahmed Raed were dismissed as defendants because the court found an insufficient basis for personal jurisdiction over them. The motion to strike the complaint was denied, and the opinion did not resolve the underlying claims on their merits.
What happened
In Kornea v. Miller, plaintiffs Illia Kornea and Octavian Kecenovici, who represented themselves, sought more than $2 million from Jeffrey A. Miller, Patricia Miller, and Ahmed Raed based on contract and state-law claims. Jeffrey Miller also represented himself.
Jeffrey Miller asked the court to strike the complaint and to dismiss Patricia Miller and Ahmed Raed. Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker recommended dismissing Patricia Miller and Raed because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them, while denying the motion to strike. The plaintiffs objected, but the court found their objections were not specific enough to require a fresh review.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer adopted the recommendation in full. The court dismissed Patricia Miller and Raed as defendants and denied the motion to strike the complaint.
The detailed version
- Kornea v. Miller · No. 1:22-cv-04454
- Paul Engelmayer
- Feb. 23, 2023
Background
Illia Kornea and Octavian Kecenovici sued Jeffrey A. Miller, Patricia Miller, and Ahmed Raed. The plaintiffs, who were proceeding without lawyers, sought judgment that more than $2 million was due. Their claims included breach of contract and claims under New York and California law. Jeffrey A. Miller was also proceeding without a lawyer.
The court had referred the case to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker for general pretrial management. Jeffrey Miller filed two motions: one asking the court to strike the complaint and another asking the court to dismiss Patricia Miller and Raed as defendants. Patricia Miller and Raed joined the motion seeking their dismissal.
Report and objections
Judge Parker recommended granting the motion to dismiss Patricia Miller and Raed for lack of personal jurisdiction and denying the motion to strike. Personal jurisdiction means the court’s authority to exercise its power over particular defendants.
The plaintiffs objected to the recommendation. They argued, among other things, that Raed had a contractual business relationship with Jeffrey Miller and that Patricia Miller was jointly liable because of her alleged marriage and partnership relationship with Jeffrey Miller. They also submitted materials concerning service of process. The district court concluded that these arguments did not directly address Judge Parker’s finding that the complaint contained no facts showing that the court had either specific or general personal jurisdiction over Patricia Miller or Raed. The court also stated that proper service, even if assumed, would not establish personal jurisdiction.
Because the plaintiffs’ objections were not sufficiently specific, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error—a plainly apparent mistake in the record—rather than conducting a fresh review of the challenged issues. The court found no clear error in Judge Parker’s report.
Ruling
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer accepted and adopted Judge Parker’s November 21, 2022 Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court dismissed Patricia Miller and Ahmed Raed as defendants and denied the motion to strike the complaint. The opinion did not decide the underlying contract or state-law claims on their merits.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.