This case is not published in a printed volume and its disposition appears in a table in the reporter.
Attorney For Plaintiff Laura M. Dilimetin, Dilimetin & Dilimetin.
Attorney For Defendant(s) Jeremy D. Platek, O'Connor Redd, LLP.
Ann Pfau, J.
Before this Court is defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff Bankrate Incorporated for lack of personal jurisdiction, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8). For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED, without prejudice to renew following limited discovery as described herein.
Background and Procedural History
A. Plaintiff's Complaint
In its complaint dated May 11, 2007, plaintiff sues for breach of contract based on three separate agreements between plaintiff and defendants, by which defendants (defendant corporation, or "Mainline," and three individually-named guarantors/employees) were to participate in a "rate directory" that plaintiffs would distribute for publication in various newspapers. The agreements referenced in, and attached to, the complaint were for publication in Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and are dated May 2005, August 2004, and February 2003, respectively.
Plaintiff claims that defendants have failed to make full payments for the "work, labor and services" provided pursuant to these contracts, despite plaintiff's demands. Plaintiff claims that Bankrate sent invoices indicating the amounts due, to which defendants did not object but also did not pay.
Plaintiff also claims that pursuant to these agreements, the individually-named defendants personally guaranteed all debts owed to plaintiffs by defendant corporation, and that defendants are obligated to pay plaintiff's attorney fees as part of the agreement. Plaintiff seeks $291,029.26 plus interest for unpaid debt, and $72,757.32 for attorney's fees, for a total of $363,786.58.
B. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
In response, defendants submitted a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction. In their motion papers, defendants concede, arguendo, that they were signatories to the agreements in question and argue that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction because defendants are not located in the state and do ...