Perna v. Sacred Heart University, Incorporated

Background

Sophia P. Perna sued Sacred Heart University, Incorporated, asserting a common-law negligence claim. She alleged that she suffered severe and permanent personal injuries after tripping over a chain suspended across a driveway outside on-campus housing known as “JHill.” The incident occurred in Connecticut while she was a registered student residing in that housing.

The university moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim. Its failure-to-state-a-claim argument asserted that the negligence claim was barred by Connecticut’s statute of limitations.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court held that it lacked both general and specific personal jurisdiction over the university.

For general jurisdiction, the court explained that a corporation must have sufficiently continuous and systematic contacts with New York to be essentially “at home” there. The university did not maintain a campus or office, own real property, maintain bank accounts, have employees reporting to a location, or hold classes or academic programs in New York. Its participation in New York recruiting events, including admission interviews and college fairs, and the fact that 37.9% of its students came from New York, were not enough to establish general jurisdiction.

For specific jurisdiction, the court considered whether the negligence claim arose from the university’s New York business activities. The court found no sufficient connection between the university’s recruiting activities in New York and Perna’s injury from the trip-and-fall, which occurred in Connecticut. The court therefore concluded that New York lacked specific jurisdiction as well.

Venue and Transfer

The court found that venue in the Southern District of New York was improper. The university was a Connecticut corporation with its principal place of business in Connecticut, the alleged incident occurred in Fairfield, Connecticut, and the case could have been brought in the District of Connecticut.

Rather than dismissing the action, the court transferred it to the District of Connecticut under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The court determined that transfer was in the interest of justice because dismissal could prevent Perna from refiling if the claim were time-barred under Connecticut law. The court also found that Perna had pursued the claim diligently, there was no suggestion that she selected New York in bad faith, and the university identified no other undue prejudice from transfer.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. It ordered that the action be transferred without delay to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The court did not decide whether the negligence claim should be dismissed as time-barred under Rule 12(b)(6).