Select Harvest USA LLC v. Indian Overseas Bank

Background

Select Harvest USA LLC filed the case on May 13, 2022, and served Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) on May 20, 2022. IOB initially failed to answer or file a motion by the deadline, leading Select Harvest to seek default judgment. IOB later appeared and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

On March 28, 2023, Judge Liman denied IOB’s motion to dismiss and Select Harvest’s motion for default judgment. Judge Liman also ordered IOB to reimburse Select Harvest’s fees and costs for seeking default judgment and allowed jurisdictional discovery—information-gathering about whether the court had authority over IOB. The court set several deadlines for that discovery. IOB failed to provide the requested documents by any of those deadlines, including a firm deadline of September 1, 2023.

IOB’s counsel sought to withdraw and submitted emails showing that IOB had been told about the discovery deadlines but had not responded. On September 5, 2023, the court ordered IOB to explain why it should not be sanctioned and found to have forfeited its objection to personal jurisdiction. IOB’s response did not explain or excuse its repeated failures to meet the deadlines.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that, unlike subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction can be waived. It also stated that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 allows a court to find that a defendant has forfeited a personal-jurisdiction objection as a sanction for failing to comply with jurisdictional discovery.

The court found that IOB had received repeated opportunities to comply, had not met a single discovery deadline, and had already been sanctioned for delays. Because IOB did not explain its failures or engage with its counsel, the court found no reason to believe that another extension would produce compliance. The court therefore imposed the contemplated sanction and found that IOB had waived its objection to personal jurisdiction.

The court separately considered IOB’s request to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because IOB raised that request in a letter, rather than through a permitted motion, the court did not consider the request in its current form. Under the local rules, motions to dismiss could not be made by letter-motion.

Disposition

The court sanctioned IOB for failing to comply with discovery deadlines and found that IOB had waived its objection to personal jurisdiction. The court also denied without prejudice IOB’s subject-matter-jurisdiction objection. The order directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 54.