The opinion of the court was delivered by: Neal P. McCURN, Senior U.S. District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM - DECISION AND ORDER
This is an action for breach of contract filed by plaintiff O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. ("OBG") against defendant Innis Arden Golf Club ("IAGF").
OBG (a New York corporation with its principal place of business located in Syracuse, New York) asserts that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over IAGC (a Connecticut corporation with its principal place of business located in Old Greenwich, Connecticut), based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. OBG states that the amount in controversy exceeds $100,000.00 exclusive of interests and costs, and that this court has supplementary jurisdiction over its claims for breach of contract pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302. OBG also argues that venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) because a substantial part of the services it provided for IAGC took place within this judicial district. Currently before the court is IAGC's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(1-3, 6), or in the alternative, to transfer this case, in the interest of justice, to the District of Connecticut pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Doc. No. 19-14). For the reasons set forth below, the motion to transfer will be granted based on this court's lack of personal jurisdiction over IAGC.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The following facts are taken from OBG's complaint, IAGC's motion, supporting affidavits and other documentation before the court, pursuant to the required procedure for an inquiry into the threshold issue of jurisdiction. For the purpose of the motion before the court, the facts are construed in the light most favorable to OBG, the non-moving party.
In late 2004, IAGC was conducting a golf course renovation project that involved the dredging of ponds in order to expand the golf club's onsite water storage capacity. In support of its renovation permits, IAGC caused sediment samples to be taken from the area of renovation which were found to contain Polychlorinated Biphenyls ("PCBs"). Doc. No. 1, ¶ 10. In January of 2005, IAGC retained OBG to investigate the contamination and provide remediation services for the environmental investigation and cleanup of the PCBs located on IAGC's property. Id., ¶ 11. On April 20, 2005, the parties memorialized the OBG retention agreement by executing a professional services agreement ("Agreement") associated with the PCB remediation program and technical support for IAGC. The agreement provided that OBG would perform services and IAGC would pay for those services, said services and payment to be defined in future written correspondence from OBG (the "cost letters") that would be approved by IAGC. There were subsequently twenty one cost letters issued by OBG over the course of more than four years. Id., ¶¶ 12-14. The agreement also addressed the issue of indemnification between the parties (¶¶ 15-18). In addition, the agreement contained a choice of law clause, stating that "[t]his Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the Laws of the State of New York."
OBG initiated the remediation program pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act in January, 2005, and completed it in the summer of 2006. The services OBG provided included taking and analyzing sediment samples, negotiating with the Federal Environmental and Protection Agency and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, obtaining the necessary environmental permits and preparing reports for the EPA including a Remedial Action Work plan. OBG rendered invoices for its services in carrying out the remediation plan, and IAGC paid all of OBG's invoices for the remediation program. OBG asserts that IAGC was satisfied with OBG's implementation and completion of the remediation program. Id., ¶¶ 20-22.
In March 2005, IAGC retained legal counsel to lead its efforts to recover the costs of the remediation program from those entities it alleged were legally responsible for the contamination. OBG provided technical support to IAGC and its lead counsel throughout IAGC's cost recovery litigation. IAGC lead counsel retained an OBG scientist as a testifying expert for IAGC. Id., ¶¶ 23, 27, 29. OBG asserts that all of OBG's litigation support and expert witness services were satisfactorily rendered in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and were completed in accordance with the applicable standard of care.
As a basis for its complaint, OBG states that IAGC has breached the Agreement by failing to pay OBG $52,515.92 ("$52,500") for Invoice No. 1105961 within thirty days and failing to give OBG prompt notice of the basis for failing to pay the amount owed. OBG argues that the invoice included services, labor and expenses associated with cost letters # 20 and # 21, work that was authorized by IAGC's counsel and agent. Id., ¶¶ 70, 71. In the alternative to its breach of contract seeking payment for unpaid invoices, OBG brings claims against IAGC for unjust enrichment and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.
In addition to the compensation sought, OBG seeks a declaratory judgment with regard to the above-mentioned technical litigation support and expert witness services that OBG rendered to IAGC in connection with IAGC's prosecution of an environmental cost recovery litigation against Pitney Bowes, Inc. and others in Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. et al., 629 F.Supp.2d 175 (D.Conn. 2009) (JBA) (holding that environmental chemist would not be permitted to render expert opinion, and landowner failed to establish prima facie case of liability under CERCLA). OBG claims that upon the dismissal of that litigation by summary judgment in favor of Pitney Bowes, Inc., IAGC notified OBG that it would be seeking "'substantial damages' from the professionals, including OBG, 'for failure to meet the standard of care in their professions.'" Doc. No. 1, ¶ 1. OBG also seeks declaratory judgment on the issue of indemnification between the parties.
The court first considers jurisdiction, which is a threshold matter to be addressed prior to consideration of IAGC's other arguments. OBG asserts that this court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332. However, IAGC argues that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over it pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(1) because the amount in ...