United States District Court, D. Rhode Island
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, CHIEF JUDGE.
Before
the Court are two motions. The first is Defendants Marie and
Paul Napoli's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, to Transfer
Venue.[1] The Second is Defendants Napoli Bern Ripka
Shkolnik, LLP (“Napoli Bern”) and Napoli
Shkolnik, PLLC's (“Napoli Shkolnik”) Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Failure to
State a Claim.[2] The Plaintiffs responded to Defendants
Marie and Paul Napoli's Motion, but failed to respond to
Napoli Bern's and Napoli Shkolnik's
Motion.[3] After considering the evidence and
arguments presented by the parties, and for the reasons set
forth herein, Defendants Napoli Bern's and Napoli
Shkolnik's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim is GRANTED.
Defendants Marie and Paul Napoli's Motion is also GRANTED
with respect to transfer of venue; the remaining claims are
hereby transferred to the Eastern District for the District
of New York.
I.
Background
The
following facts are gleaned from the Plaintiffs'
Complaint.
Plaintiffs
are attorneys in Rhode Island who were previously married and
both reside in Rhode Island.[4] Plaintiff John Deaton is an
asbestos litigator and the owner of The Deaton Law Firm, LLC,
headquartered in Rhode Island.[5] The Defendants Marie and Paul
Napoli are attorneys who reside in and are citizens of New
York.[6]The Defendants Napoli Bern and Napoli
Shkolnik are law firms that are based in New York and are,
according to the Complaint, competitors to The Deaton Law
Firm.[7]
In
November of 2007, John Deaton employed Vanessa Dennis as an
associate/paralegal at his law firm, The Deaton Law
Firm.[8]Dennis stayed at the firm until January 31,
2011, at which point she left the firm to work for Napoli
Bern.[9] According to the Complaint, during Vanessa
Dennis's tenure at Napoli Bern, Vanessa Dennis and
Defendant Paul Napoli had an affair, which was discovered by
Defendant Marie Napoli.[10] On May 21, 2013, Defendant Marie
Napoli sent a Facebook message to both Plaintiffs inquiring
whether John Deaton also had an affair with Vanessa Dennis
when she worked for him, and whether it was the cause of the
Plaintiffs' divorce. While Maria Ferro Deaton did not
reply, John Deaton stated that there was no affair, and that
the divorce was underway prior to him meeting Vanessa
Dennis.[11]
Four
years later, according to the Plaintiffs' Complaint, in
February of 2017, “Plaintiffs were alerted by civil
defense attorneys . . . that [the Plaintiffs], their divorce
and children were discussed within court filings by the
Defendants.”[12] In a filing in which Defendant Marie
Napoli was a plaintiff, Marie Napoli asserted that an affair
took place between John Deaton and Vanessa
Dennis.[13] Plaintiffs also allege in their
Complaint that, “the Defendants wrote, sent or caused
to be delivered, several letters [containing false
allegations regarding an affair between John Deaton and
Vanessa Dennis] to colleagues and fellow plaintiff attorneys
of Plaintiff Deaton and their wives, who practice within
asbestos litigation.”[14] Plaintiffs allege that the
statements are defamatory and have tortuously interfered with
Plaintiffs' business relations.[15]
The
Complaint was originally filed in April of 2017 in Rhode
Island Superior Court, but was removed to this Court on
grounds of diversity jurisdiction.[16] As noted above, the
Defendants Marie and Paul Napoli, and the law firms
Defendants Napoli Bern and Napoli Shkolnik, have filed
Motions to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The
Plaintiffs responded to Defendants Marie and Paul
Napoli's Motion but failed to respond to the law firm
Defendants' motion.
II.
Personal Jurisdiction
a.
Personal Jurisdiction over Marie and Paul Napoli
For
this Court to have personal jurisdiction over Marie and Paul
Napoli, Plaintiffs must show that (1) the Rhode Island
long-arm statute grants jurisdiction over the claim; and (2)
exercising jurisdiction does not violate the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[17] Rhode Island's
long-arm statute “extends up to the constitutional
limitation.”[18] Therefore, this Court need only focus on
the limitations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Under
the Due Process Clause, Plaintiff has the burden of showing
that Marie and Paul Napoli have had certain “minimum
contacts” with Rhode Island such that this Court's
hearing of the case would “not offend
‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.'”[19] While Plaintiff can meet this standard
by demonstrating either general or specific jurisdiction,
Plaintiffs argue jurisdiction over Marie and Paul Napoli only
on specific jurisdiction grounds.[20] For claims of specific
jurisdiction, the Court employs a three-pronged analysis that
requires a showing of “relatedness, purposeful
availment, and reasonableness”:
First, the claim underlying the litigation must directly
arise out of, or relate to, the defendant's forum-state
activities. Second, the defendant's in-state contacts
must represent a purposeful availment of the privilege of
conducting activities in the forum state, thereby invoking
the benefits and protections of that state's laws and
making the defendant's involuntary presence before the
state's courts foreseeable. Third, the exercise of
jurisdiction must, in light of the Gestalt factors, be
reasonable.[21]
Plaintiff
has the burden of establishing all three
prongs.[22]Plaintiffs evidence on this issue is
reviewed using the prima facie method:
Under [this] standard, the inquiry is whether the plaintiff
has proffered evidence which, if credited, is sufficient to
support findings of all facts essential to personal
jurisdiction. In order to make a prima facie showing of
jurisdiction, the plaintiff ordinarily cannot rest upon the
pleadings but is obliged to adduce evidence of specific
facts. The court must accept the plaintiff's (properly
documented) evidentiary proffers as true for the purpose of
determining the adequacy of the prima facie jurisdictional
showing, and construe them in the light most congenial to the
plaintiff's jurisdictional claim.[23]
a.
Relatedness
“The relatedness inquiry for tort claims focuses on
whether the defendant's in-forum conduct caused the
injury or gave rise to the cause of
action.”[24] In determining relatedness “[w]hen
physical presence is lacking, [this Court] look[s] for some
other indication that the defendant reached in the forum,
such as mail or telephone contacts.”[25]
The
Plaintiffs cite two contacts that they believe render
Defendants Marie and Paul Napoli subject to this Court's
jurisdiction. The first contact is a Facebook message that
Marie Napoli sent to Plaintiffs.[26] The second, “that
the Defendants wrote, sent or caused to be delivered, several
letters to colleagues and fellow plaintiff attorneys of
Plaintiff Deaton and their wives, who practice within
asbestos litigation in the State of Rhode
Island.”[27]
Regarding
the first contact, the Facebook message, the message is
related to Rhode Island in the sense that it was sent to
Plaintiffs' who reside in Rhode Island. Nevertheless, as
discussed above, to satisfy the relatedness prong “the
defendant's in-forum conduct . . . [must give] rise to
the cause of action.”[28]A Facebook message sent from
Marie Napoli to John Deaton and Maria Ferro Deaton, however,
cannot give rise to a claim for defamation because it does
not involve a third-party.[29] Nor can it give rise to the
claim that “publication of such statements to lawyers
and others involved in the nationwide practice of asbestos
litigation . . . tortuously interfere[ed] with
Plaintiffs' business relationships” because, again,
the Facebook message involved no third-party.[30]
Personal
jurisdiction of Plaintiffs claims over Marie and Paul Napoli
must therefore live or die on the second contact cited by
Plaintiffs, the “several letters.” The first
inquiry is whether these alleged letters constitute an
“in-forum conduct.”[31] As discussed above, it is
the Plaintiff's burden to “adduce evidence of
specific facts” that satisfy all aspects of
jurisdiction.[32]Furthermore, the Plaintiffs “must
do more than simply surmise the existence of a favorable
factual scenario; he must verify the facts alleged through
materials of evidentiary quality.”[33]
Plaintiffs'
evidence of specific facts related to the alleged letters is
an Affidavit from John Napoli in which he states essentially
the same statement made in the Complaint:
. . . I further learned, from discussions with other
attorneys and from the readings of court filings, that the
Defendants wrote, sent or caused to be delivered, several
letters to colleagues and associates of mine, who also
practice within asbestos litigation in the State of Rhode
Island.”[34]
Plaintiffs
also provided a copy of one of the “several letters,
” which was also provided in the Complaint.
Conspicuously absent from both the copy of the letter, and
from John Deaton's Affidavit, is any proffer that the
letters were actually sent, delivered or published in Rhode
Island. As such, there is no allegation of an in-forum
contact.[35] As there is no in-forum contact,
Plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden on the relatedness
prong and it is unnecessary to discuss purposeful availment
and reasonableness. Accordingly, there is no personal
jurisdiction over Marie and Paul Napoli.[36]
b.
Personal Jurisdiction over Napoli Bern and Napoli Shkolnik
As
discussed, the framework for analyzing personal jurisdiction
is clear: it is the Plaintiffs' burden to demonstrate
personal jurisdiction. Napoli Bern and Napoli Shkolnik have
contested jurisdiction, and Defendants have failed to
respond. The only information Plaintiffs provided in their
Complaint regarding personal jurisdiction pertaining
specifically to Napoli Bern and Napoli Shkolnik is that:
“(1) the defendant, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, a firm at
which defendant Maria Napoli is a partner and defendant Paul
Napoli is of-counsel, advertises as conducting business in
Rhode Island [and]; (2) the Defendant Napoli Bern Ripka
Shlonik, LLP, a firm at which Paul Napoli and Marc Bern were
partners, practiced law within Rhode Island and appeared on
behalf of clients in Rhode Island
courts.”[37]
Because
the Plaintiffs' outline their jurisdictional claim over
Defendants Napoli Bern and Napoli Shkolnik in their Complaint
based on the firms' contacts with Rhode Island that are
not related to the claim, this Court assumes the Plaintiffs
sought personal jurisdiction over the law firms based on a
theory of general jurisdiction.
To have
general jurisdiction over a defendant, “in which the
cause of action may be unrelated to the defendant's
contacts, [first] the defendant must have continuous and
systematic contacts with the state. Second . . . the
defendant's contacts with the state must be purposeful.
And third, the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable
under the circumstances.”[38] Again, it is the
Plaintiffs responsibility to establish personal jurisdiction.
The Court “accept[s] the plaintiff's (properly
documented) evidentiary proffers as true”[39] and
“[t]hose facts put forward by the defendant become part
of the mix [if] . . . they are
uncontradicted.”[40]
Both of
the law firm defendants, which are based out of New York, as
part of their Motion to Dismiss, which was not responded to,
provided evidence that Napoli Bern's contacts with Rhode
Island do not meet the above standard. For example, the
Defendants claim that Napoli Bern has represented clients in
litigation in Rhode Island twice (through local
counsel)[41], have never had a Rhode Island office,
and have not specifically targeted advertisements at Rhode
Island.[42] Additionally, the law firm Defendants
provide evidence that Napoli Shkolnik has never represented a
client in litigation in Rhode Island and has never targeted
advertisements specifically at Rhode Island.[43] These types
of contacts generally do not amount to a finding of general
jurisdiction over defendants.[44] As this evidence is
uncontradicted, Plaintiffs have not met their burden to
demonstrate personal jurisdiction over the law firm
defendants.
III.
Venue
Having
found that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs' claims over Marie and Paul Napoli, and Napoli
Bern and Napoli Shkolnik, the Court must now determine
whether the claims ...