United States District Court, S.D. New York
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge.
Jenny Ramgoolie, proceeding pro se, commenced this
action against defendants Andy Ramgoolie, Jeremy Ramgoolie,
Kevin Ramgoolie, Annie Ramgoolie, and foreign corporate
defendants AANDCO Healthcare Ltd ("AANDCO") and KDR
Medical Care Ltd. ("KDR") alleging various causes
of action. On May 19, 2016, the action was referred to
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn. Order of Reference to a
Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 3. On July 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a
motion for preliminary injunction and appointment of a
receiver. Plaintiff s Notice of Motion for Preliminary
Injunction & Appointment of a Receiver ("Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and Receiver"), Dkt. 25. On July
14, 2016, corporate defendants AANDCO and KDR
("Corporate Defendants") moved to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction. Defendants' Notice of Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint ("Motion to Dismiss"), Dkt.
December 20, 2016, Magistrate Judge Netburn issued a Report
& Recommendation recommending that the Motion to Dismiss
be granted and that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and
Receiver be denied. Report and Recommendation
("R&R"), Dkt. 55. Written objections to the
R&R were due fourteen days from service of the R&R.
R&R at 16. To date, no party has filed any objections to
the R&R. For the following reasons, this Court ADOPTS the
R&R in its entirety.
reviewing a report and recommendation, a district court
"may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). When no
objections are made to a magistrate judge's report, a
district court may adopt the report unless a "clear
error on the face of the record" is present.
Phillips v. Reed Grp., Ltd., 955 F.Supp.2d 201, 211
(S.D.N.Y.2013) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F.Supp.
1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)). Because no objections were filed
in this case, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge's
R&R for clear error. As discussed below, a careful review
of the R&R reflects no clear error in Magistrate Judge
by pro se litigants are construed more leniently
than submissions by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and are interpreted to raise the
strongest arguments they suggest. Pabon v. Wright,
459 F.3d 241, 248 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Burgos v.
Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994)). This Court
notes that although Magistrate Judge Netburn did not
explicitly state that she was construing Plaintiffs
submissions liberally, the R&R reflects every argument
presented in the Plaintiffs brief and Complaint viewed in the
most favorable light to her.
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
Corporate Defendants move to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, arguing that this Court lacks both general and
specific jurisdiction over them. For the following reasons,
this Court adopts the R&R's recommendation to grant
the Corporate Defendants' motion to dismiss.
are two types of personal jurisdiction: specific and general.
Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 814 F.3d 619, 624
(2d Cir. 2016). For foreign corporate defendants, general
jurisdiction exists only when the defendant is
"essentially at home in the forum State."
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746, 751, 760 (2014)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The states
in which a defendant is incorporated and has its principal
place of business have general jurisdiction. Id. at
760. Specific jurisdiction is conferred on a foreign
defendant if the lawsuit arises out of or is related to the
defendant's contacts with the forum. Helicopteros
Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414,
n.8 (1984). Regardless of whether personal jurisdiction is
specific or general, "the exercise of personal
jurisdiction over a defendant is informed and limited by the
U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process, which
requires that any jurisdictional exercise be consistent with
'traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.'" Brown, 814 F.3d at 625 (quoting
Int 7Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310,
is no clear error in the R&R's conclusion that
Plaintiff has not established general or specific
jurisdiction over the Corporate Defendants. There is no clear
error in the R&R's conclusion that Plaintiffs
allegations do not establish that the Corporate Defendants
were "at home" in New York. The Corporate
Defendants are both incorporated in Trinidad. Complaint
¶¶ 18-19, 24, Dkt. 1. Although in her opposition
brief Plaintiff asserts that AANDCO has "continuous,
permanent and substantial activity in New York, "
Plaintiffs allegations do not tend to show that AANDCO was
"essentially at home" in New York, as is required
for the assertion of general jurisdiction under
Daimler. Plaintiff also does not allege any facts or
make any arguments tending to show that KDR was
"essentially at home" in New York.
addition, there is no clear error in the R&R's
conclusion that Plaintiff failed to establish specific
jurisdiction. Although Plaintiff alleged that certain AANDCO
business transactions occurred in New York, she failed to
establish any nexus between those transactions and her
claims. R&R at 9. In addition, even if Plaintiff could
demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction was permissible
under New York's long-arm statute, Plaintiff has failed
to establish that the exercise of such jurisdiction would
comport with "traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice." Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S.
review and consideration of this case reveals no clear error
in the R&R's recommendation to grant the Corporate
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons discussed
herein and in the R&R, this Court ADOPTS the
R&R's recommendation and grants the Corporate
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Appointment of a
moved for a preliminary injunction to be entered against all
the defendants and for the appointment of a receiver. This
Court also agrees with the R&R that Plaintiff failed to
establish that she was entitled to a preliminary injunction
or to the appointment of a receiver. To succeed on a motion
for a preliminary injunction, the movant must show: (1)
"a likelihood of success on the merits or . . .
sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make
them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships
tipping decidedly in the plaintiffs favor;" (2) a
likelihood of "irreparable injury in the absence of an
injunction;" (3) that "the balance of hardships
tips in the plaintiffs favor;" and (4) that the
"public interest would not be disserved" by the
issuance of an injunction." Benihana, Inc. v.