Bayshore Capital Advisors, LLC v. Bron Studios USA, Inc.
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-01105
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Bayshore Capital Advisors v. Bron Studios USA, Judge Karas ordered briefing on New York transaction contacts and whether attorney service counts for RICO jurisdiction.
The plaintiff, the BRON defendants, and the Creative defendants were required to submit briefing on the two jurisdictional issues. The order does not state any ruling affecting the Hudson defendants.
What happened
In Bayshore Capital Advisors, LLC v. Bron Studios USA, Inc., the court ordered the plaintiff, the BRON defendants, and the Creative defendants to address two jurisdiction-related questions.
First, the parties must brief whether the plaintiffs’ claims have a sufficient connection to business transactions that the BRON and Creative defendants conducted in New York with the Hudson defendants. Second, they must brief whether serving a foreign defendant’s attorney in the United States counts as service within the United States for purposes of jurisdiction under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas set a seven-page, double-spaced limit and required the submissions by March 2, 2023. The order did not decide either question or resolve the claims.
The detailed version
- Bayshore Capital Advisors, LLC v. Bron Studios USA, Inc. · No. 7:22-cv-01105
- Kenneth Karas
- Feb. 23, 2023
Order
The court ordered the plaintiff, the BRON defendants, and the Creative defendants to submit briefing on two issues. The opinion does not state the parties’ positions on those issues.
New York jurisdiction
The parties must address whether, under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 302(a)(1), the plaintiffs’ causes of action have an “articulable nexus” or “substantial relationship” to transactions of business in New York that each BRON and Creative defendant conducted with the Hudson defendants. Section 302(a)(1) concerns whether certain business activity in New York supports personal jurisdiction—the court’s authority over a defendant.
Service for RICO jurisdiction
The parties must also address whether service on a foreign defendant’s attorney in the United States constitutes service within the United States for purposes of jurisdiction under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly called RICO.
Deadlines and effect
The submissions may not exceed seven pages, double-spaced, and were due March 2, 2023. Judge Kenneth M. Karas’s order directs further briefing; it does not decide the jurisdictional questions, dismiss or resolve any claims, or enter judgment.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.