The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Satori, LLC ("Satori") commenced this action against defendants Prodema, LLS ("Prodema") and Caversham, LLC ("Caversham"), seeking enforcement of a foreign money judgment granted by the Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow, pursuant to Article 53 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. (See Compl. ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 1.) On September 22, 2011 the court issued a memorandum-decision and order granting Caversham's motion to dismiss and terminating it as a party. (See Dkt. No. 58.) In so doing, the court reserved judgment on Prodema's motion to dismiss and invited Satori and Prodema to submit supplemental briefings on the issue of venue. (See id. at 8.)
Both parties accepted the court's invitation and filed their briefs on September 29, 2011. (See Dkt. Nos. 59, 60). In addition to its brief, Satori also filed a motion to supplement its pleadings through jurisdictional discovery. (See Dkt. No. 60.) For the reasons that follow, Prodema's motion to dismiss is granted, and Satori's motion to supplement is denied.
For a complete discussion of the facts underlying this dispute, the court refers the parties to its memorandum-decision and order of September 22, 2011. (See Dkt. No. 58 at 2-4.)
The standard of review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 is well established and will not be repeated here. For a full discussion of the standard, the court refers the parties to its decision in Ellis v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 701 F. Supp. 2d 215, 218 (N.D.N.Y. 2010).
In light of the dismissal of Caversham from this action, the court noted that venue in the Northern District of New York may no longer be proper. (See Dkt. No. 58 at 8.) Instead of dismissing on this ground sua sponte, the court opted to provide the parties with notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue of venue. (Id.) Accordingly, Prodema now avers that the Northern District of New York is an improper venue.*fn1
(See Dkt. 59 at 4.) The court agrees.
Under the general venue statute for diversity actions, venue is only proper:
[I]n (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Here, it is undisputed that the Northern
District of New York is neither Prodema's residence, nor "a judicial
district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is
the subject of the action is situated." Id. Furthermore, the fact that
Prodema is a corporate citizen of Wyoming demonstrates that another
district exits in which this action may be brought.*f ...