Palmore v. Napoli Shkolnik PLLC

Background

Heather Palmore sued Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Paul Napoli, Marie Napoli, and Hunter Shkolnik. She alleged race discrimination and retaliation under federal and New York laws, disability discrimination under New York laws, interference with and retaliation for exercising rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, and violation of New York’s anti-SLAPP law in connection with a state-court lawsuit filed against her by Napoli Shkolnik.

The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3), and 12(b)(6). Alternatively, they asked to transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York. Palmore alleged that she worked at both the firm’s New York City and Long Island offices, as well as remotely. The opinion states that she resided in Long Island, that the firm’s principal place of business was in New York City, and that the individual defendants were domiciled in Puerto Rico.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court held that it had personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants under New York’s long-arm statute, specifically New York Civil Practice Law and Rules section 302(a)(1). The court found that their communications and other activities related to Palmore’s employment purposefully involved business in New York and that her claims had a sufficient connection to those activities. The court also found that exercising jurisdiction complied with constitutional due-process requirements. Because jurisdiction was proper under section 302(a)(1), the court did not address Palmore’s alternative argument under section 302(a)(3).

Venue

The court held that venue was improper in the Southern District of New York as to both the individual defendants and Napoli Shkolnik. For the individual defendants, Palmore had not sufficiently shown where the relevant calls, emails, and remote meetings occurred, so she had not established that a substantial part of the events occurred in the Southern District.

As to Napoli Shkolnik, Palmore identified several events connected to the firm’s New York City office, including her attendance at a task-force meeting, receipt of an employee survey, and participation in a mediation. But the court concluded that these events were not a substantial part of the discrimination and retaliation claims because they were not actions directed against Palmore or were not the retaliatory acts underlying her claims. The court determined that the substantial events occurred in the Eastern District, including at the firm’s Long Island office.

Transfer and Disposition

Under 28 U.S.C. section 1406(a), a court may transfer a case filed in an improper venue when transfer serves the interests of justice. The court found that the Eastern District of New York was a proper venue because Palmore resided there and worked daily at the firm’s Long Island office. The defendants’ request for transfer also waived their objections to personal jurisdiction and venue in that district. The court further found that transfer, rather than dismissal, served the interests of justice because it allowed the action to continue without requiring Palmore to file a new case.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer in part and ordered the action transferred to the Eastern District of New York for all further proceedings. The court did not decide the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) arguments concerning whether Palmore’s claims stated legally sufficient claims. The clerk was directed to transfer the case and terminate the motion.