Canova Law Office LLC v. The Law Office of Ronald A. Marron, APLC

Background

Canova Law Office LLC brought an action to enforce a fee-splitting agreement with The Law Office of Ronald A. Marron, APLC. The firms were described as co-class counsel in a California state class action that settled on May 17, 2018. Canova alleged that the agreement entitled it to half of the $435,289.80 in attorneys’ fees paid to Marron as part of that settlement.

Marron moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(3) for lack of venue. Marron argued that the Southern District of New York lacked personal jurisdiction and that an arbitration clause required the dispute to be handled in California. Canova expressly conceded that the arbitration clause required arbitration in California but argued that the federal case should be stayed rather than dismissed. Canova did not address the personal-jurisdiction argument.

Personal Jurisdiction Analysis

The court held that Canova failed to meet its burden of showing personal jurisdiction over Marron.

For general jurisdiction, which allows a defendant to be sued on all claims, the court found no allegation that Marron was incorporated in New York or was otherwise “at home” there. Although the complaint suggested that Marron had litigated 11 cases in New York state and federal courts over an unspecified period, the court held that this did not establish the continuous and systematic business contacts required for general jurisdiction.

For specific jurisdiction, which applies when the claim arises from conduct connected to the forum, the court found no sufficient connection between New York and the fee-splitting agreement. The court identified several reasons: the complaint did not allege an ongoing contractual relationship with a New York entity; it did not allege that the agreement was negotiated or executed in New York; the contract was to be performed exclusively in California; the contract did not require notices or payments to be sent to New York; and the contract contained a California choice-of-law clause. The court also stated that any emails Marron sent to New York were legally insufficient to establish the required connection.

Disposition

The court granted Marron’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). It denied Canova’s request to stay the case as moot and directed the clerk to close the motions at ECF Numbers 10 and 15 and to close the case. The opinion did not reach the merits of Canova’s claim for attorneys’ fees. It also did not separately state a disposition of Marron’s Rule 12(b)(3) venue argument.

Judge

J. PAUL OETKEN, United States District Judge, issued the memorandum and order.