Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York considered motions concerning personal jurisdiction over Yoram Almogy and Four G Investment, Inc., as well as the validity of service of process on APF, Ltd. The court denied Almogy's motion to dismiss, granted Four G's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and held service on APF valid under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(1)(D).
Holdings
- The fiduciary shield does not protect a corporate officer or director from personal jurisdiction to the extent the person's corporate activities allegedly furthered personal business or personal gain rather than legitimate corporate business.
- PRMSA's allegations and documentary submissions were sufficient to sustain personal jurisdiction over Almogy at the motion-to-dismiss stage, even without proof that every transaction relied upon was directly connected to the agency agreement.
- Four G was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York because it was not doing business in New York when the action commenced and could not have transacted business in connection with the agency agreement because it was formed after that agreement was terminated.
- Service of process on APF by registered mail to its business address was valid under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(1)(D).
Questions Presented
- Whether the fiduciary-shield doctrine barred personal jurisdiction over Almogy for activities undertaken through corporations that he allegedly controlled and used for personal business and gain.
- Whether PRMSA made a sufficient prima facie showing to sustain personal jurisdiction over Almogy and allow the complaint against him to proceed.
- Whether Four G Investment, Inc. was subject to personal jurisdiction in New York under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules §§ 301 or 302 based on the activities of Star Lines, Ltd.
- Whether service of process on APF, Ltd. by registered mail satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(1)(D).
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (9)
- United States v. Montreal Trust Co., 358 F.2d 239 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 919 (1966)(applied)
- Bastille Properties, Inc. v. Hometels of America, Inc., 476 F. Supp. 175 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)(applied)
- Alosio v. Iranian Shipping Lines, S.A., 307 F. Supp. 1117 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)(applied)
- Frummer v. Hilton Hotels International, Inc., 19 N.Y.2d 533, 281 N.Y.S.2d 41, 227 N.E.2d 851 (1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 923 (1967)(applied)
- Taca International Airlines, S.A. v. Rolls-Royce of England, Ltd., 15 N.Y.2d 97, 256 N.Y.S.2d 129, 204 N.E.2d 329 (1965)(applied)
- Top Form Mills, Inc. v. Sociedad Nationale Industria Applicazioni Viscosa, 428 F. Supp. 1237 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)(applied)
- Gaboury v. Central Vermont Ry. Co., 250 N.Y. 233, 165 N.E. 275 (1929)(applied)
- Tokyo Boeki (U.S.A.), Inc. v. S.S. Navarino, 324 F. Supp. 361 (S.D.N.Y. 1971)(mentioned)
- SCM Corp. v. Brother International Corp., 316 F. Supp. 1328 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)(mentioned)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…