Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Rule 11 Sanctions Denied
Rates Technology Inc., v. Broadvox Holding Company et al.
Case Number: 1:13-cv-00152-SAS (Dkt. 116)
Judge Scheindlin denied defendant Broadvox Holding’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Broadvox Holding’s subsidiaries, also defendants in the matter, operate a VoIP network in New York, and the court found that Broadcom Holding is the same business as the subsidiaries and that “Broadvox Holding’s subsidiaries are doing business in New York as its agents.” Accordingly, applying New York’s agency theory of personal jurisdiction, the court held that it had personal jurisdiction over Broadvox. Ginsberg v. Government Props. Trust. Inc., No. 07 Civ. 365, 2007 WL 2981683, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct 10, 2007).
Judge Scheindlin also denied Broadvox Holding’s request for Rule 11 sanctions. Defendant had served plaintiff with a motion for sanctions, but then plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, thus resetting the 21 day safe harbor given by Rule 11. Defendants never served a second Rule 11 motion after the filing of the amended complaint, and so “defendants’ motion must be denied.”
The articles on our Website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice.