Your client has just asked you to commence an action against a corporate entity in a New York state court. But, the defendant is not incorporated in New York, and does not maintain a principal place of business in New York. Further, the incident underlying your client’s claim did not occur in New York, nor
The Manhattan Commercial Division lost a gem of a jurist last month when Governor Cuomo appointed Justice Saliann Scarpulla to a seat on the bench of the Appellate Division, First Department. Good for her, to be sure. But many of us ComDiv practitioners will be sorry to see her go.
Justice Scarpulla, after all,
In Setter Capital, Inc. (“Setter”) against Maria Chateauvert (“Chateauvert”), No. 651992/2020, 2020 NY Slip Op 20199 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County July 15, 2020), Setter moved the court for a preliminary injunction “enjoining its former employee [Chateauvert] from directly or indirectly soliciting, inducing or recruiting or attempting to interfere with the relationship between [Setter] and any customer, client supplier, licensee or other business relation of [Setter’s] or otherwise disrupt, damage, impair or interfere in any manner with the business of [Setter] until February 3, 2022.” Id. at *1-2 (internal quotations omitted).
It is well settled that in order to obtain a preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR 6301, a plaintiff has the burden to establish “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits of the action; (2) the danger of irreparable injury in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief; and (3) a balance of equities in favor of the moving party.” Id. at *2 citing Nobu Next Door, LLC v. Fine Arts Housing, Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).
At the outset, the court addressed the issue of whether the court had jurisdiction over Chateauvert, a Canadian resident. Id. at *2. In September 2013 and two years after graduation from college, Chateauvert signed a Confidentiality and Non-Compete Agreement (“Agreement”) related to Chateauvert’s employment with Setter. Id. The Agreement contains a choice of law and forum selection clause selecting New York law as governing law and New York courts as the exclusive venue and jurisdiction for disputes. Id. at *2.
In its analysis, the court addressed the question of the enforceability of the choice of law and forum selection clause of the Agreement (as an employment agreement) under Sections 5-1401 and 5-1402 of New York’s General Obligation Law (“GOL”). Id. at *2-3. “GOL § 5-1401 provides for the enforcement of choice of law provisions in contracts over $250,000 and GOL § 5-1402 provides for the enforcement of forum selection provisions in contracts over $1,000,000. Id. The court explained that that GOL § 5-1401 is inapplicable to contracts for “labor or personal services,” and although GOL § 5-1402 allows for actions based on contracts against non-residents to be maintained in New York “where: (1) the contract contains a choice of law clause pursuant to GOL § 5-1401,” that neither section was applicable in the case. Id. at 3 (citation omitted). Reading into the legislative intent behind these GOL provisions, the court also questioned whether Chateauvert, just two years out of college, was the “sophisticated business person the legislature envisioned in 1985 when GOL § 5-1401 and § 5-1402 were enacted.” Id. at *3.
The court determined that “if the court cannot exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the Agreement, then plaintiff must establish jurisdiction.” Setter, supra, at *3. The court found that the jurisdictional issue was “an issue of fact that undermines plaintiff’s likelihood of success.” Id.Continue Reading Preliminary Injunctions: Jurisdictional Issue Undermines Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Attorneys do a lot for their clients. They offer counsel, provide legal advice, and work hard to advocate for their client. But one thing they shouldn’t do, is assist their client perpetrate millions of dollars of fraud and then assert a flawed statute of limitations defense in a desperate attempt to avoid liability. Unfortunately that’s
A familiar fact pattern: ParentCo is the owner and controlling shareholder of SubCo. ParentCo completely controls SubCo. The two companies have the same officers, issue consolidated financial returns, and the profits and losses of SubCo are passed through to ParentCo. ParentCo deliberately keeps SubCo in a cash-starved and undercapitalized state, so SubCo is entirely dependent
“Read before you sign”, is what we counsel our clients, since we all know that courts will bind one contractually to a signed agreement even if not read. But, what if you never signed the agreement? Can you still be bound by it? In earlier blogs — here and here — we addressed this very
A few weeks ago, my colleague Sonia Russo blogged about how shareholders seeking to bring successive derivative actions should be wary, since dismissal of a derivative action for failure to allege pre-suit demand or demand futility may have a preclusive effect on a subsequent derivative action based on the same issues. But what if a
Foreign cities, thieves, and millions of dollars’ worth of missing diamonds. This may sound like the trailer for this summer’s blockbuster action film, but this story of hustling and heisting comes straight from Swissgem S.A and Genevagem S.A. v M&B Limited, a New York case recently decided by Commercial Division Justice Peter O. 
Sherwood.
Undoubtedly, unsuspecting foreign corporations may find themselves having business connections in New York and subject to the jurisdiction of New York courts.
This blog post focuses on a recent decision by Hon. Andrew Borrock of the Commercial Division of the New York State Supreme Court for New York County in Matter of Renren, Inc. Derivative
At this point, after nearly three months of practicing law virtually from home, I think it’s fair to say that what was once novel and experimental has become a kind of new norm for the future.
Sure, state courts in New York, including the Commercial Division, have been returning slowly-but-surely to in-person operations over the