# Jerusalem NY Enterprises LLC v. Huber Erectors & Hoisting, LLC

> District Court, E.D. New York · December 8, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10307284

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** December 8, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10307284

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the plaintiff must establish all five elements in order to assert jurisdiction pursuant to section 302(a)(3)(ii)
- noting that jurisdictional discovery had taken place and requiring evidentiary support for jurisdictional allegations
- finding that alleged damages to the plaintiff’s credit and business reputation stemming from bank’s foreclosure of his property in Florida were not injuries within New York

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------
JERUSALEM NY ENTERPRISES LLC,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER
21-CV-376 (MKB)
v.

HUBER ERECTORS & HOISTING, LLC, and
KAKEL MAINTENANCE AND
CONSTRUCTION,

Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Jerusalem NY Enterprises LLC commenced the above-captioned action on
December 23, 2020, in the New York Supreme Court, Kings County, against Defendants Huber
Erectors & Hoisting, LLC (“Huber”), Kakel Maintenance and Construction (“Kakel”), Richard
T. Lauer, Esq., and LauerLaw, LLC, seeking to recover damages for alleged prima facie tort,
conversion, fraud, and abuse of process arising from the garnishment of a bank account owned
by Plaintiff. (Notice of Removal ¶ 1, Docket Entry No. 1; Summons and Verified Compl.
(“Compl.”) ¶¶ 16–20, annexed to Notice of Removal as Ex. A, Docket Entry No. 1-1.) On
January 22, 2021, Defendants Richard T. Lauer, Esq., and LauerLaw, LLC (the “Lauer
Defendants”), removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity of citizenship
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441. (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 5–11.) On October
9, 2021, the Court dismissed the Complaint against the Lauer Defendants for lack of personal
jurisdiction. (Mem. and Order, Docket Entry No. 24.)
Huber and Kakel now move to dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction,
improper venue, and failure to state a claim pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, respectively, and Plaintiff opposes the motion.1 For the
reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants’ motion and dismisses the Complaint
against them for lack of personal jurisdiction.
I. Background
The Court assumes the truth of the factual allegations in the Complaint for the purposes

of this Memorandum and Order.2
a. The parties
Plaintiff is a domestic limited liability company that is “registered and conducts business
in . . . New York.” (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 9.) Plaintiff is “managed and operated by an individual named
Ezra Unger,” (id. ¶ 9), who is “Plaintiff’s sole member and is a citizen of New York,” (Notice of
Removal ¶ 6). Unger concurrently manages another legal entity called JNY Capital (“JNY”).
(Id. ¶ 10.) Both Plaintiff and JNY are “New York based legal entities” with operational bank
accounts “registered in . . . New York.” (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff alleges “upon information and
belief” that Huber is “a legal entity that is registered in . . . Washington and conducts business

1 (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss (“Defs.’ Mot.”), Docket Entry No. 18; Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of
Defs.’ Mot. (“Defs.’ Mem.”), Docket Entry No. 19; Defs.’ Reply Mem. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot.
(“Defs.’ Reply”), Docket Entry No. 23; Pl.’s Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. (“Pl.’s Opp’n”), Docket Entry
No. 22.)

2 See Dorchester Fin. Sec., Inc. v. Banco BRJ, S.A., 722 F.3d 81, 85 (2d Cir. 2013) (“[A]
Rule 12(b)(2) motion . . . assumes the truth of the plaintiff’s factual allegations for purposes of
the motion and challenges their sufficiency.” (quoting Ball v. Metallurgie Hoboken–Overpelt,
S.A., 902 F.2d 194, 197 (2d Cir. 1990))); see also Wolo Mfg. Corp. v. ABC Corp., 349 F. Supp.
3d 176, 194 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (“Where . . . personal jurisdiction is challenged by way of a motion
pursuant to [Rule 12(b)(2)], the [c]ourt must ‘assume[] the truth of the plaintiff’s factual
allegations.’” (third alteration in original) (quoting Dorchester Fin. Sec., Inc., 722 F.3d at 85)).
in . . . Ohio,” (id. ¶ 2), and that Kakel is “a fictitious entity that lacks proper business registration
and is not incorporated” but conducts business in Ohio,3 (id. ¶ 3).
b. The Ohio action
This matter arises out of an action in Ohio (the “Ohio action”)4 brought by the City of
Cincinnati in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio (the “Ohio Court”) against

nonparties JNY and Cincinnati Terrace Associates LLC (“CTA”) as well as Huber and Kakel.
(Id. ¶¶ 10–11.) “On October 17, 2019, Huber and Kakel filed a motion for summary judgment in
[the] Ohio action, in which they contended that they ‘and JNY entered into a written contract
pursuant to which Huber agreed to perform certain work.’” (Id. ¶ 13.) The Ohio Court granted
summary judgment “in favor of Huber and Kakel and against JNY and CTA on their cross-claim,
unopposed.” (Id. ¶ 15 (emphasis omitted).) The summary judgment “was non-final” and thus
could be neither appealed nor “enforced by means of garnishment proceedings” at that point.
(Id.)
c. The alleged fraudulent garnishment entry

Although Plaintiff was never a defendant in the Ohio action and had “no relations” with
Huber and Kakel through “litigation proceedings, business interactions or otherwise,” Huber and
Kakel and their attorneys — the Lauer Defendants — prematurely filed a garnishment entry
against Plaintiff “in an attempt to collect funds under the non-final judgment.” (Id. ¶¶ 14, 16–
18.) Defendants were required “to go through judgment domestication procedures” in order to

3 Huber and Kakel maintain that they are limited liability companies “duly organized and
existing under the laws of . . . Ohio,” that their principal place of business is Ohio, that they have
“no other office locations anywhere,” and that their members all reside in Ohio. (Decl. of Robert
J. Huber, Jr. (“Huber Decl.”) ¶¶ 2–3, Docket Entry No. 21.)

4 See City of Cincinnati v. Cincinnati Terrace Assocs., LLC, No. A1901286 (Hamilton
Cnty. Ct. Com. Pl. 2020).
execute a garnishment entry in New York on the basis of a decision rendered in Ohio, but
“Huber and Kakel . . . curtailed that process and submitted their [g]arnishment [e]ntry directly to
Chase Bank (‘Chase’) to freeze [Plaintiff’s] New York bank account . . . funds.” (Id. ¶¶ 18–19.)
In addition, even though Huber and Kakel knew that Plaintiff was an unrelated party, they
submitted to Chase an “informational printout” on Plaintiff from the New York State Department

of State in support of their request that Chase “freeze all accounts.” (Id. ¶ 28.) As a result, on
August 6, 2020, Chase placed holds on Plaintiff’s bank accounts “in the amount[s] of $862.03
and $36,422.38.” (Id. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff “consistently and systematically” notified Huber and
Kakel, their attorneys, and Chase of the fact that Chase had placed a hold against an improper
party. (Id. ¶ 29.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s funds were transferred to the Clerk of the Ohio Court
pursuant to the fraudulent garnishment entry. (Id. ¶¶ 21, 30.) Subsequently, the Ohio Court
“terminated the [g]arnishment [e]ntry on the grounds that the summary judgment was non-final.”
(See id. ¶¶ 16, 21.) Despite the Ohio Court’s decision holding that “the garnishment entry was
entered prematurely,” the Clerk of the Ohio Court still retains Plaintiff’s funds. (Id. ¶¶ 22, 31.)

d. Alleged systemic misconduct by Huber and Kakel
Plaintiff alleges “upon information and belief” that, at all relevant times, Huber
“operated . . . without proper licensing” because “Huber’s license was suspended on November
6, 2017,” as indicated in Washington’s Department of State database, and that Kakel “does not
maintain proper business registration.” (Id. ¶¶ 32–34.) Plaintiff alleges that taken together, these
facts “are indicative of [a] pattern of systemic misconduct” that “culminated in Defendants’
egregious attempts to improperly file a [g]arnishment [e]ntry against Plaintiff.” (Id. ¶¶ 35–36.)
e. Relief sought
Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ actions “financially immobilized” Plaintiff by
preventing Plaintiff “from paying its counterparties on time, [thereby] exposing Plaintiff to
financial penalties for late payments.” (Id. ¶¶ 23–24.) In addition, because Plaintiff “was unable
to utilize its frozen operational account to pay its employees,” its “[e]mployees had to be laid

off.” (Id. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff also suffered reputational damages with its clients; negative effects to
its credit score, credit rating, and interest rates due to deteriorating business relations with its
creditors; and the incursion of legal fees. (Id. ¶¶ 26–27.) Plaintiff seeks “$37,284.41, along with
treble damages, i.e.[,] $149,137.64, and legal fees” for prima facie tort, conversion, fraud, and
abuse of process. (Id. at 10–11.)
II. Discussion
a. Standard of review
On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating personal

jurisdiction over a person or entity against whom it seeks to bring suit.” Troma Ent., Inc. v.
Centennial Pictures Inc., 729 F.3d 215, 217 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc. v.
Am. Buddha, 609 F.3d 30, 34 (2d Cir. 2010)). The showing a plaintiff must make to meet that
burden is governed by a “sliding scale,” which “varies depending on the procedural posture of
the litigation.” Dorchester Fin. Sec., Inc. v. Banco BRJ, S.A., 722 F.3d 81, 84 (2d Cir. 2013)
(quoting Ball v. Metallurgie Hoboken–Overpelt, S.A., 902 F.2d 194, 197 (2d Cir. 1990)). If a
defendant challenges personal jurisdiction by filing a Rule 12(b)(2) motion, “the plaintiff need
only make a prima facie showing that the court possesses personal jurisdiction over the
defendant.” JCorps Int’l, Inc. v. Charles & Lynn Schusterman Family Found., 828 F. App’x
740, 742 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting DiStefano v. Carozzi N. Am., Inc., 286 F.3d 81, 84 (2d Cir.
2001)); see also Holmes v. Apple, 797 F. App’x 557, 559 (2d Cir. 2019) (“A plaintiff has the
burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over an entity against which it seeks to bring suit,
and to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of such jurisdiction, ‘a plaintiff must make a prima
facie showing that jurisdiction exists.’” (quoting Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc., 609 F.3d at 34–35));

Eades v. Kennedy, PC Law Offs., 799 F.3d 161, 167–68 (2d Cir. 2015) (same). Prior to
discovery, a plaintiff need only plead “an averment of facts that, if credited by the ultimate trier
of fact, would suffice to establish jurisdiction over the defendant.” Holmes, 797 F. App’x at 559
(quoting Chloé v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158, 163 (2d Cir. 2010)); see also
Dix v. Peters, 802 F. App’x 25, 27 (2d Cir. 2020) (“Where the district court grants a
Rule 12(b)(2) motion without an evidentiary hearing, we credit the plaintiff’s averment of
jurisdictional facts as true.” (citing Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560,
567 (2d Cir. 1996))); Chirag v. MT Marida Marguerite Schiffahrts, 604 F. App’x 16, 19 (2d Cir.
2015) (“A prima facie case requires non-conclusory fact-specific allegations or evidence

showing that activity that constitutes the basis of jurisdiction has taken place.” (citing Jazini v.
Nissan Motor Co., 148 F.3d 181, 185 (2d Cir. 1998))). After discovery, the plaintiff’s “prima
facie showing must be factually supported.” Dorchester Fin. Sec., Inc., 722 F.3d at 85 (quoting
Ball, 902 F.2d at 197). “Conclusory allegations based only on information and belief are not
sufficient” to provide such factual support. McGlone v. Thermotex, Inc., 740 F. Supp. 2d 381,
383 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Jazini, 148 F.3d at 183–84).
In resolving a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule
12(b)(2), a district court may consider materials outside the pleadings. Dorchester Fin. Sec., 722
F.3d at 86 (citing S. New Eng. Tel. Co. v. Glob. NAPs Inc., 624 F.3d 123, 138 (2d Cir. 2010));
see also UTC Fire & Sec. Ams. Corp., Inc. v. NCS Power, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 2d 366, 370
(S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“In deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the court has
discretion to proceed either upon written submissions or through a full evidentiary hearing on the
merits . . . .” (quoting Taylor Devices, Inc. v. Walbridge Aldinger Co., 538 F. Supp. 2d 560, 575
(W.D.N.Y. 2008))); see also O’Neill v. Asat Tr. Reg. (In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11,

2001), 714 F.3d 659, 676 (2d Cir. 2013) (noting that jurisdictional discovery had taken place and
requiring evidentiary support for jurisdictional allegations); McGlone, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 384
(looking to record developed once jurisdictional discovery as to [defendant] was complete to
decide a motion to dismiss). In addition, the court must “construe the pleadings and any
supporting materials in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.” Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese
Can. Bank, SAL (Licci IV), 732 F.3d 161, 167 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Chloé, 616 F.3d at 163); see
also Grundstein v. Eide, 598 F. App’x 45, 46 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing DiStefano v. Carozzi N. Am.,
Inc., 286 F.3d 81, 84 (2d Cir. 2001) (per curiam)). However, the court need not “accept as true a
legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 714

F.3d at 673 (quoting Jazini, 148 F.3d at 185).
b. The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Huber and Kakel
Defendants argue that the Court must dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction
because Plaintiff “relies solely” on New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“N.Y. C.P.L.R.”)
§ 302(a)(3)(ii) but cannot establish jurisdiction under this subsection. (Defs.’ Reply 1.) In
support, Defendants argue that (1) Plaintiff did not suffer a direct injury in New York because
the only damages Plaintiff claims are financial losses and the events underlying the Complaint all
took place in Ohio, (id. at 2–3; Defs.’ Mem. 13; Huber Decl. ¶ 6), (2) Defendants did not
“reasonably expect[] that the proceedings in the Ohio [a]ction would have ‘consequences’ in
New York” because they “have done nothing to purposefully avail themselves of the benefits of
the laws of New York,” (Defs.’ Mem. 13–14; Defs.’ Reply 4; Huber Decl. ¶ 8), (3) Defendants
do not “derive substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce,” (Defs.’ Mem. 14
(citing Huber Decl. ¶ 7); Defs.’ Reply 4), and (4) it would be burdensome to Defendants to be
forced to defend this lawsuit in New York, (Huber Decl. ¶ 9).
Plaintiff argues that it has established specific jurisdiction under N.Y. C.P.L.R.

§ 302(a)(3)(ii) because (1) Plaintiff suffered a direct injury from the freezing of its New York
bank accounts, “which, in turn, triggered [Plaintiff’s] financial economic injury,” (Pl.’s Opp’n 3),
(2) Defendants “knew or should have known that they were dealing with [a] New York[-]based
corporation” because Unger “related [this fact] to [them] on numerous occasions,” this fact “can
be easily deduced” from Plaintiff’s name, and “the information about [Plaintiff’s]
geographical/jurisdictional affiliation . . . with [New York] is public and is readily accessible
online,” (id.), (3) Defendants derive “substantial revenue from interstate or international
commerce” because they admit that Huber has “provided services to clients in Florida, Illinois,
Washington, and Washington, D.C.,” and that Kakel has had clients in “Kentucky and Indiana,”

(id. at 4), and (4) Defendants can fairly be expected to defend lawsuits in this forum due to the
“conveniences of modern communication and transportation,” (id.).
“There are two types of personal jurisdiction: specific and general.” Sonera Holding B.V.
v. Çukurova Holding A.Ş., 750 F.3d 221, 225 (2d Cir. 2014). General jurisdiction permits a court
to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant regardless of whether the underlying claim has
a connection to the forum. Id. (“A court with general jurisdiction over a corporation may
adjudicate all claims against that corporation — even those entirely unrelated to the defendant’s
contacts with the state.”). Specific jurisdiction requires a connection between the forum
exercising jurisdiction over the defendant and the underlying controversy that gave rise to the
claim. Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Org., 835 F.3d 317, 331 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Specific
jurisdiction . . . depends on an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy,
principally, activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum state and is therefore subject
to the State’s regulation.” (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S.
915, 919 (2011))). Under New York law, courts exercise specific jurisdiction pursuant to section

302 of the N.Y. C.P.L.R. and general jurisdiction pursuant to section 301 of the N.Y. C.P.L.R.
Under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a), there are four bases for extending specific personal
jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary defendant. Bah v. Apple Inc., No. 19-CV-3539, 2020 WL
614932, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2020); see also Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239,
244 (2d Cir. 2007) (describing bases for jurisdiction under the New York long-arm statute).
Section 302(a)(3) permits courts to exercise specific jurisdiction over a domiciliary corporation
that commits a tortious act outside of New York that causes harm to someone in the state if either
of two conditions are present.5 See Timothy Coffey Nursery Landscape Inc. v. Soave, 760 F.
App’x 58, 61 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Troma Ent., Inc., 729 F.3d at 218); Thackurdeen v. Duke

Univ., 660 F. App’x 43, 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (same). A court may exercise personal jurisdiction
over a corporation pursuant to subsection 302(a)(3) if the entity:
(i) regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other
persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from
goods used or consumed or services rendered, in the state, or
(ii) expects or should reasonably expect the act to have
consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from
interstate or international commerce.

5 Although Defendants also argue that the Court lacks general jurisdiction over them
pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 301 and specific jurisdiction pursuant to the other subsections of
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a), (see Defs.’ Mem. 7–8, 10–11, 14), Plaintiff has not responded to these
arguments and instead relies solely on section 302(a)(3)(ii) as the basis for jurisdiction, (see Pl.’s
Opp’n 1–4). Accordingly, the Court does not consider these additional arguments.
Holmes, 797 F. App’x at 560 (quoting N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(3)(i)–(ii)); Thackurdeen, 660 F.
App’x at 46 (same); Troma Ent., Inc., 729 F.3d at 218 (same); Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc., 609
F.3d at 35–36 (discussing N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(3)(ii)); Sole Resort, S.A. de C.V. v. Allure
Resorts Mgmt., LLC, 450 F.3d 100, 103 (2d Cir. 2006) (same). In addition, even if a plaintiff can
establish jurisdiction under New York law, the court must also determine whether the “exercise

of personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant comports with the due process protections
established under the United States Constitution.” Licci IV, 732 F.3d at 168 (first citing Best Van
Lines, Inc., 490 F.3d at 242; and then citing Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316
(1945)).
In order to successfully assert jurisdiction under section 302(a)(3)(ii), a plaintiff must
establish that:
(1) the defendant’s tortious act was committed outside New York,
(2) the cause of action arose from that act, (3) the tortious act caused
an injury to a person or property in New York, (4) the defendant
expected or should reasonably have expected that his or her action
would have consequences in New York, and (5) the defendant
derives substantial revenue from interstate or international
commerce.
Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc., 609 F.3d at 35. In determining the third element, where the injury was
caused, courts apply a “situs-of-injury test,” which requires the court “to locate the original event
which caused the injury.’” Thackurdeen, 660 F. App’x at 46–47 (quoting Whitaker v. Am.
Telecasting, Inc., 261 F.3d 196, 209 (2d Cir. 2001)); see also Timothy Coffey Nursery Landscape
Inc., 760 F. App’x at 61 (same); United Mobile Techs., LLC v. Pegaso PCS, S.A. de C.V., 509 F.
App’x 48, 50 (2d Cir. 2013) (same). The situs of the injury for the purpose of section
302(a)(3)(ii) “is the location of the original event which caused the injury, not the location where
the resultant damages are felt by the plaintiff.” Timothy Coffey Nursery Landscape Inc., 760 F.
App’x at 61 (quoting Whitaker, 261 F.3d at 209). Moreover, “[i]t is well-settled that ‘residence
or domicile of the injured party within [New York] is not a sufficient predicate for jurisdiction’
under section 302(a)(3).” Troma Ent., Inc., 729 F.3d at 218 (alteration in original) (quoting
Fantis Foods, Inc. v. Standard Importing Co., 425 N.Y.S.2d 783 (1980)). “Honoring this
principle, [courts] have rejected as insufficient to support the exercise of jurisdiction over a
defendant allegations of ‘remote or consequential injuries such as lost commercial profits which

occur in New York only because the plaintiff is domiciled or doing business here.’” Id. (first
quoting Lehigh Valley Indus. v. Birenbaum, 527 F.2d 87, 94 (2d Cir. 1975); and then citing Am.
Eutectic Welding Alloys Sales Co. v. Dytron Alloys Corp., 439 F.2d 428, 433 (2d Cir. 1971)).
“Therefore, ‘[t]he occurrence of financial consequences in New York due to the fortuitous
location of plaintiffs in New York is not a sufficient basis for jurisdiction under § 302(a)(3)
where the underlying events took place outside New York.’” Timothy Coffey Nursery Landscape
Inc., 760 F. App’x at 61 (alteration in original) (first quoting Whitaker, 261 F.3d at 209; and then
citing Troma Ent., Inc., 729 F.3d at 218); Campbell v. Azrak, No. 18-CV-3051, 2020 WL
4001894, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2020) (same); Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 81 N.Y.S.3d 18, 20

(App. Div. 2018) (“That [a] plaintiff felt economic injury in New York, alone, is an insufficient
basis to confer jurisdiction.”).
Plaintiff fails to state a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction over Defendants under
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(3)(ii) because Plaintiff has not shown that it suffered an injury in New
York. Plaintiff alleges that the tortious conduct in this case was Defendants’ premature filing of
a garnishment entry against Plaintiff “in an attempt to collect funds under [a] non-final
judgment” in the Ohio action. (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 16–18.) As Defendants argue, all of the events
underlying the Complaint occurred in Ohio: on March 12, 2020, the Ohio court granted summary
judgment in favor of Huber and Kakel without opposition; on June 26, 2020, Lauer served a
subpoena duces tecum upon the Chase Bank, N.A., records custodian located in Ohio; and, on
July 29, 2020, following receipt of Chase’s responsive records revealing that Plaintiff was the
depositor on the subject account, the Ohio court entered a garnishment order that listed the Ohio
bank as the garnishee. (Huber Decl. ¶ 6; Decl. of Richard T. Lauer, Esq. (“Lauer Decl.”) ¶ 6,
annexed to Lauer Defs.’ Mot., Docket Entry No. 11-2); see also Huber Decl. ¶ 5 (incorporating

Lauer Declaration by reference).) Subsequently, Chase froze Plaintiff’s New York bank
accounts. (Compl. ¶¶ 18–19.) However, because all of the underlying events that caused the
seizure of Plaintiff’s funds in New York took place in Ohio, Ohio is the situs of Plaintiff’s injury
— not New York, where Plaintiff suffered financial consequences of those events due to the
location of its accounts in New York. In addition, Plaintiff’s residence in New York is
insufficient to confer jurisdiction. See Troma Ent., Inc., 729 F.3d at 218. Thus, Plaintiff fails to
satisfy the third element of section 302(a)(3)(ii) and therefore fails to assert personal jurisdiction
over Defendants.6 Whitaker, 261 F.3d at 209 (“The occurrence of financial consequences in
New York due to the fortuitous location of plaintiffs in New York is not a sufficient basis for

6 Plaintiff argues that it sustained a direct injury in New York because the “first effect”
of the tort was the freezing of Plaintiff’s New York bank accounts. However, in support,
Plaintiff cites cases in which courts either found specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state
defendant whose tortious acts caused physical injury in New York or found no jurisdiction over
the defendant because the injury occurred outside of New York and the plaintiff merely suffered
financial harm in New York. (Pl.’s Opp’n 2 (“[W]here defective baby formula was
manufactured out of state, but ingested in New York, [the] place of injury was New York not the
place of manufacture.” (quoting Simon v. Philip Morris, Inc., 86 F. Supp. 2d 95, 124 (E.D.N.Y.
2000))); id. at 2–3 (first citing United Bank of Kuwait, PLC v. James M. Bridges, Ltd., 766 F.
Supp. 113, 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (finding no jurisdiction over out-of-state bank where negligent
preparation and certification of financial statements occurred in Virginia and the plaintiff
suffered financial harm in New York); then citing Levans v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 988 F. Supp. 2d
330, 337 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (finding no jurisdiction over Guyanese airport where the placement of
drugs in the plaintiff’s suitcase in Guyana caused him to lose his job and suffer financial harm in
New York); and then citing Penny v. United Fruit Co., 869 F. Supp. 122, 129 (E.D.N.Y. 1994)
(holding that “as a general matter, [to find jurisdiction], defendants need not have been able to
foresee the identity of the plaintiff”)).)
jurisdiction under § 302(a)(3) where the underlying events took place outside New York.”
(quoting United Bank of Kuwait, PLC v. James M. Bridges, Ltd., 766 F. Supp. 113, 116
(S.D.N.Y. 1991)); see also Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc., 609 F.3d at 38 (“[It is] settled New York
law that the suffering of economic damages in New York is insufficient, alone, to establish a
‘direct’ injury in New York for N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(3) purposes.” (collecting cases)); Faherty

v. Fender, 572 F. Supp. 142, 150 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (finding that New York plaintiff suffered
injury in Texas where a default judgment was fraudulently obtained against the plaintiff in Texas
and the plaintiff sustained emotional and financial consequences in New York); Fisher v.
O’Brien, No. 09-CV-42, 2010 WL 1286365, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2010) (finding that
monetary damages suffered in New York as a result of a lien placed on the plaintiff’s property in
Ohio were insufficient to constitute injury); Madison Cap. Mkts., LLC v. Starneth Eur. B.V., No.
15-CV-7213, 2016 WL 4484251, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2016) (finding no jurisdiction where
merely the alleged tort’s economic consequences were felt in New York); Lipin v. Bergquist, 574
F. Supp. 2d 423, 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (finding the plaintiff’s residence in New York and

“‘experience’ of economic and/or emotional injury in this state” insufficient to constitute injury);
Guardino v. Am. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Fla., 593 F. Supp. 691, 695–96 (E.D.N.Y. 1984) (finding
that alleged damages to the plaintiff’s credit and business reputation stemming from bank’s
foreclosure of his property in Florida were not injuries within New York); Henkin v. Gib. Private
Bank & Tr. Co., No. 16-CV-5452, 2018 WL 557866, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2018) (finding no
jurisdiction where Florida-based defendant with New York branch had done nothing in New
York in connection with the alleged tort, making the plaintiff’s presence and the economic harm
he suffered in New York the only connection between the allegedly tortious actions and the
state); NewMarkets Partners LLC v. Oppenheim, 638 F. Supp. 2d 394, 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
(finding that “[s]ection 302(a)(3) cannot serve as a basis for jurisdiction, even if [the plaintiffs]
suffered financial harm in New York,” where the events giving rise to the injury occurred outside
of New York). Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a prima facie case for personal
jurisdiction under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(3)(ii).7
Because Plaintiff’s allegations and supporting materials fail to demonstrate that the Court

has specific jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(3)(ii), the Court
grants Defendants’ motion and dismisses the Complaint against them for lack of personal
jurisdiction.
c. The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for limited jurisdictional discovery
Plaintiff asks the Court “to permit it to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery” if the
Court “find[s] some of the arguments/facts presented herein as not fully developed.” (Pl.’s
Opp’n 5.) In support, Plaintiff argues that “[s]uch discovery has typically been authorized where
the plaintiff has made a threshold showing that there is some basis for the assertion of
jurisdiction.” (Id. (quoting Leon v. Igor Shmukler, Thinomenon, Inc., 992 F. Supp. 2d 179, 195
(E.D.N.Y. 2014)).) In addition, Plaintiff argues that the Court “may be obligated to order

jurisdictional discovery based on a lesser showing [than a prima facie case], in particular when

7 In view of the Court’s finding that Plaintiff fails to establish a “direct injury” suffered
in New York, the Court does not address the other prongs of section 302(a)(3)(ii). See Bank of
N.Y. Mellon v. SACE S.p.A, No. 10-CV-2510, 2011 WL 102728, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2011)
(“[A]lthough it may be argued that Defendant should have ‘reasonably foreseen consequences in
New York thereby satisfying the third requirement [of section 302(a)(3)(ii)],’ the ‘[c]ourt need
not decide this issue because [the plaintiff] has failed to allege the second required element,
namely an injury in New York.” (quoting Whitaker v. Fresno Telsat, Inc., 87 F. Supp. 2d 227,
229 (S.D.N.Y. 1999))); Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779,
791 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that the plaintiff must establish all five elements in order to assert
jurisdiction pursuant to section 302(a)(3)(ii)); see also Kowalski–Schmidt v. CLS Mortg., Inc.,
981 F. Supp. 105, 110 (E.D.N.Y.1997) (finding no jurisdiction where there is no injury suffered
in New York). Nor does the Court consider the parties’ arguments as to Defendants’ motions, in
the alternative, to dismiss the Complaint for improper venue or failure to state a claim.
the plaintiff fails to allege legally sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction, but nonetheless asserts
specific, non-conclusory facts that, if further developed, could demonstrate substantial state
contacts.” (Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Leon, 992 F. Supp. 2d at 195).) Plaintiff also
argues that “even where [a] plaintiff has not made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction,
a court may still order discovery . . . when it concludes that the plaintiff may be able to establish

personal jurisdiction if given the opportunity to develop a full factual record.” (Id. (quoting Sidik
v. Royal Sovereign Int’l, Inc., No. 17-CV-7020, 2020 WL 5441306, at *23 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 10,
2020)).)
Defendants argue that the Court should deny Plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional
discovery because Plaintiff “failed to make a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction” and
“failed to even indicate what [it] would seek in jurisdictional discovery.” (Defs.’ Reply 4 (first
citing Jazini, 148 F.3d at 185–86; and then citing Stutts v. De Dietrich Grp., 465 F. Supp. 2d
156, 169 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)).) In addition, Defendants argue that “no amount of discovery will
change the fact that [Plaintiff] did not sustain a direct injury in New York.” (Id. at 5.)

“A district court has ‘considerable procedural leeway’ when deciding a motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction and ‘may permit discovery in aid of the motion.’” Stutts, 465 F.
Supp. 2d at 169 (quoting Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Miller, 664 F.2d 899, 904 (2d Cir.
1981)); see also Broidy Cap. Mgmt. LLC v. Benomar, 944 F.3d 436 (2d Cir. 2019) (“[T]he
district court has considerable latitude in devising the procedures it will follow to ferret out the
facts pertinent to jurisdiction.” (quoting Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran,
905 F.2d 438, 449 (D.C. Cir. 1990))). “[The] court should take care to ‘give the plaintiff ample
opportunity to secure and present evidence relevant to the existence of jurisdiction.’” APWU v.
Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 627 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Phoenix Consulting v. Republic of Angola, 216
F.3d 36, 40 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). The bar for granting “jurisdictional discovery” is “low,”
Universal Trading & Inv. Co. v. Credit Suisse (Guernsey) Ltd., 560 F. App’x 52, 55 (2d Cir.
2014), and it is appropriately granted where a plaintiff’s allegations make a “sufficient start”
toward establishing personal jurisdiction, Uebler v. Boss Media, AB, 363 F. Supp. 2d 499, 506
(E.D.N.Y. 2005). However, “if the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case for personal

jurisdiction, jurisdictional discovery is generally not granted.” RSM Prod. Corp. v. Fridman,
643 F. Supp. 2d 382, 402 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (first citing Jazini, 148 F.3d at 186; and then citing
Langenberg v. Sofair, No. 03-CV-8339, 2006 WL 2628348, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2006)
(collecting cases)), aff’d, 387 F. App’x 72 (2d Cir. 2010); see also Beierwaltes v. L’Office
Federale De La Culture De La Confederation Suisse, 999 F.3d 808, 828 (2d Cir. 2021) (“A court
. . . does not abuse its discretion in denying jurisdictional discovery ‘if the party seeking
discovery cannot articulate a reasonable basis for the court first to assume jurisdiction.’” (quoting
Arch Trading Corp. v. Republic of Ecuador, 839 F.3d 193, 206–07 (2d Cir. 2016))). “If a
plaintiff has identified a genuine issue of jurisdictional fact, jurisdiction[al] discovery is

appropriate even in the absence of a prima facie showing as to the existence of jurisdiction.”
Daventree Ltd. v. Republic of Azerbaijan, 349 F. Supp. 2d 736, 760 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); Tex. Int’l
Magnetics, Inc. v. Auriga-Aurex, Inc. (In re Magnetic Audiotape Antitrust Litig.), 334 F.3d 204,
207–08 (2d Cir. 2003) (per curiam). “However, a court is not obligated to subject a foreign
corporation to discovery where the allegations of jurisdictional facts . . . fail to state a basis for
the exercise of jurisdiction or where a plaintiff’s proposed discovery, if granted, would not
uncover facts sufficient to sustain jurisdiction,” Daventree Ltd., 349 F. Supp. 2d at 761 (first
citing Jazini, 148 F.3d at 185–86; and then citing APWU, 343 F.3d at 627), and “[d]iscovery
need not be granted to permit a fishing expedition for jurisdictional facts,” Greer v. Carlson, No.
20-CV-5484, 2020 WL 6064167, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2020) (citing RSM Prod. Corp., 643
F. Supp. 2d at 402).
As discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to state a prima facie case for personal
jurisdiction over Defendants under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 302(a)(3)(ii) because the events underlying the
Complaint all took place in Ohio, making Ohio the situs of Plaintiff’s injury, and Plaintiff only

suffered financial consequences in New York, which is insufficient to confer jurisdiction.
Therefore, because Plaintiff cannot establish that it suffered injury in New York under this
section, no jurisdictional discovery would assist Plaintiff in satisfying this element. See Yash Raj
Films (USA) Inc. v. Dishant.com LLC, No. 08-CV-2715, 2009 WL 4891764, at *11 (E.D.N.Y.
Dec. 15, 2009) (“[W]hatever speculations or hopes [the] plaintiff may have that further
connections to New York will come to light in discovery, [the] plaintiff has not provided
sufficient facts to establish the jurisdiction that is a prerequisite to any such discovery.” (quoting
Rosenberg v. PK Graphics, No. 03-CV-6655, 2004 WL 1057621, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 10,
2004))). Although a court may nevertheless grant a request for jurisdictional discovery under

some circumstances, those circumstances do not exist in this case since Plaintiff has not
identified a genuine issue of jurisdictional fact or proposed discovery that, if granted, would
likely uncover facts sufficient to sustain jurisdiction. See Broidy Cap. Mgmt. LLC, 944 F.3d at
446 (affirming denial of request for jurisdictional discovery because “instead of making specific
requests, [the] plaintiffs merely stated in a summary paragraph at the end of their opposition that
they were entitled to discovery”); Tannerite Sports, LLC v. NBCUniversal Media LLC, 135 F.
Supp. 3d 219, 235 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (denying jurisdictional discovery because “[the plaintiff] has
failed to present any specific information indicating that discovery is likely to yield evidence
sufficient to demonstrate [jurisdiction over the defendant in New York]”), aff’d sub nom.
Tannerite Sports, LLC v. NBCUniversal News Grp., 864 F.3d 236 (2d Cir. 2017).
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery.8
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss and

dismisses the action against them without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court is directed to close
this case.
Dated: December 8, 2021
Brooklyn, New York

SO ORDERED:

s/ MKB

MARGO K. BRODIE
United States District Judge

8 Plaintiff does not request leave to amend, and the Court declines to allow amendment
as any such amendment would be futile. See Universal Trading & Inv. Co. v. Credit Suisse
(Guernsey) Ltd., 560 F. App’x 52, 56–57 (2d Cir. 2014) (finding that “even if appellants’ cursory
request had been sufficient, the district court would have correctly deemed any amendment futile
as appellants did not, and still have not, pointed to a specific basis for the exercise of jurisdiction
over [the appellees]” (citing Advanced Magnetics, Inc. v. Bayfront Partners, Inc., 106 F.3d 11,
18 (2d Cir. 1997))); Advanced Magnetics, Inc., 106 F.3d at 18 (holding that “[l]eave to amend
need not be granted, however, where the proposed amendment would be “futile”).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10307284. Public record. Not legal advice.