Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WILLIAMS v. NATHAN

September 13, 1995

JAMES E. WILLIAMS II, Plaintiff, against CYNTHIA R. NATHAN, Defendant.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN GLEESON

 JOHN GLEESON, United States District Judge:

 Plaintiff James E. Williams, acting pro se, brought this diversity action against defendant Cynthia R. Nathan, claiming damages for defamation of character. Defendant Nathan, also appearing pro se, has moved to dismiss the claims, or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. For the reasons discussed below, the action is dismissed.

 BACKGROUND

 The litigious relationship between the parties has an elaborate history consisting, for the most part, of actions the plaintiff has filed against the defendant and others. Prior to bringing the instant action, plaintiff sued defendant twice in the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting fraud, breach of contract and professional malpractice, among other claims. Both actions were dismissed. The second complaint, which listed no less than 130 causes of action, was dismissed in part on March 19, 1993 by the Honorable James C. Cacheris ("Chief Judge Cacheris' order"), *fn1" and later dismissed in its entirety when plaintiff failed to comply with discovery. (Judge Sifton's order at 3.) The dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In addition, on February 5, 1992, plaintiff filed a bankruptcy petition in the same district, which he later withdrew. On April 1, 1992, he filed for bankruptcy in this district. That proceeding was subsequently dismissed.

 Finally, plaintiff filed this action on September 3, 1993. He claims that defendant defamed him in a letter she sent in September 1992 to two of his creditors, Alex and Nathan Steinberg, who were litigating an unrelated action against plaintiff. *fn2" Defendant, who is 81 years old and ailing, has been unable to appear in person regarding this action, and consequently all proceedings thus far have been conducted by telephone conference and written submission.

 On September 26, 1994, the Honorable Charles P. Sifton, who was then presiding over the case, issued an order ("Judge Sifton's order") which addressed the instant motion to dismiss. In that order, Judge Sifton construed the defendant's pro se motion to be based upon the absence of personal jurisdiction, and concluded that jurisdiction was indeed lacking under § 302 (a) (1) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR"). Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff's pro se status, Judge Sifton allowed him a second opportunity to present facts sufficient to ground jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to show why transfer to another federal district was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1406. The parties submitted supplemental affidavits in October and November 1994, and the case was subsequently transferred to this Court. Additional affidavits were submitted after the transfer.

 The 1994 affidavits describe the parties' communications regarding certain real estate transactions. In July 1991, defendant, a resident of Virginia, sold plaintiff, a resident of New York, a house located at 1800 South Lynn Street, Arlington, Virginia, for $ 360,000. (Judge Sifton's order at 2; Plaintiff's Supplemental Aff. ("Pl.'s Aff.") at 2.) Defendant took a first deed of trust on the property in the amount of $ 355,000, and a blanket trust of $ 87,000 on another property owned by plaintiff in Arlington, at 1029 South 19th Street. (Judge Sifton's order at 2.)

 A series of legal proceedings followed. On February 3, 1992, plaintiff applied for a temporary restraining order to suspend the foreclosure proceedings. (Id.) The application was denied. Subsequently, he filed the four actions described above, see supra pp. 1-2.

 Defendant Nathan bought both the South Lynn Street and South 19th Street properties at the auction She then brought suit in a Virginia state court to remove plaintiff from the South 19th Street house. (Judge Sifton's order at 3.) In connection with this suit, defendant obtained an order prohibiting plaintiff from entering the premises. (Id.) The police informed plaintiff that he would be arrested if he attempted to return there. (Chief Judge Cacheris' order at 4.)

 A. The Supplemental Affidavits

 As noted above, Judge Sifton's order permitted plaintiff another opportunity to present facts that justified personal jurisdiction over defendant Nathan in this district. In his supplemental affidavit submitted in late 1994, plaintiff characterized his communications with defendant in connection with his purchase of the South Lynn Street property as a series of telephone calls he received from defendant or her agents:

 
"Beginning in April of 1991, I received telephone calls from Virginia followed by a contract in the mail prepared by Arlington Realty, Inc., through its sales agent, Loretta D. Connor, in relation to 1800 South Lynn Street, Arlington, Virginia. In June 1991, I began ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.