Federal Court in New York Finds that Personal Jurisdiction and Venue of Premises Liability Case Are in Massachusetts – Bonkowski v. HP Hood, LLC

In order to adjudicate a claim, a court must have subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue. If subject matter jurisdiction is not present, the only remedy is dismissal of the case because the court lacks the authority to hear the case.

With regard to personal jurisdiction and venue, however, there is also the possibility of a transfer of the case to a more appropriate forum. This is especially true in the federal courts.

Recently, a corporation with deep ties to Massachusetts challenged the jurisdiction and venue of a lawsuit filed against it in a New York federal court.

Facts of the Case

In the recent case of Bonkowski v. HP Hood, LLC, the plaintiffs were New York residents who filed suit against the defendant, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Massachusetts, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking redress for an injury suffered by the male plaintiff when he was delivering goods to the defendant. According to the complaint, the male plaintiff was a truck driver, and he tripped over a raised metal plate while making a delivery to the defendant’s facility in Agawam, Massachusetts. He sought compensation for injuries he allegedly suffered to his shoulder, left arm, and left hand.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ cause of action, asserting that the New York federal district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant. In its motion, the defendant sought a transfer of the action to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The Plaintiffs’ Argument Against Transfer

The plaintiffs stated that the defendant produced and distributed milk and related products throughout the country, including in New York, and that the defendant maintained an administrative office in New York. The plaintiffs admitted that the defendant’s principal place of business was in Massachusetts but pointed out that the defendant was authorized to do business in New York and had a registered agent for service of process in New York.

What the Federal Court in New York Decided

The court granted the defendant’s motion and transferred the case to the federal district court in Massachusetts. According to the court, the proper inquiry was whether the defendant’s affiliations with New York were so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home there. Finding that the defendant’s contacts with New York were insufficient to comport with due process standards, the court agreed with the defendant that the (New York) court lacked personal jurisdiction.

The court also agreed with the defendant that venue was improper because the events upon which the case was based occurred in Massachusetts, rather than New York.

For Legal Assistance with Your Premises Liability Case

If you have been hurt in a slip and fall accident or been injured due to the negligence of a business owner, the Cape Cod premises liability attorneys at the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, are here to help you get started with the process of holding the negligent party responsible for damages you may have suffered, such as lost earnings, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. We have offices in both Hyannis and Plymouth, and, if necessary, we can come to your home or hospital room to discuss your case.

Related Blog Posts:

Summary Judgment Ruled Improper in Slip and Fall Case Against Massachusetts Farm and Retail Store – Belanger v. Boys in Berries, LLC Summary Judgment to Cape Cod Store Was Improper in Massachusetts Woman’s Slip and Fall Suit – Bowers v. P. Wile’s, Inc.