Homeward Residential., Inc. v Thompson Hine LLP  2018 NY Slip Op 30325(U)  February 22, 2018  Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 156730/2017  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth claims that when Plaintiff was successfully sued in Georgia, its attorney failed to cite a local rule which limited punitive damages.  As a result, instead of the limited $ 250,000 it was required to pay $3M.  Sounds good so far, but why is the case in NY?

“Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant stresses that it is a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of Ohio and its principal place of business is in Cleveland, Ohio. Defendant argues that New York has no connection to the underlying lawsuit that occurred in Georgia-defendant claims that none of its New York-based attorneys were involved in the Georgia action. Defendant concludes that it is not subject to general jurisdiction in New York.
In opposition, plaintiff points to information about defendant it found listed by the New York Department of State on its website (“DOS”) which plaintiff claims demonstrates that defendant changed its principal place of business from Cleveland to New York City. Plaintiff also points to a filing in another litigation based in New York in which defendant asserted that its principal place of business is in New York City. ”

“In reply, defendant stresses that the DOS website printouts identify defendant’s principal office within New York; it does not list its principal place of business for purposes of general jurisdiction. Defendant also notes that the firm is listed as a foreign limited liability partnership with DOS. ”

“In order to arrive at plaintiffs conclusion that defendant is actually headquartered in New York, one would have to selectively rely on information that supports plaintiffs position to the exclusion of everything else. Put another way, to embrace plaintiffs conclusion would require the Court to ignore the fact that plaintiff hired defendant to represent it in a Georgia action, paid defendant at an address in Ohio, and ignore the references to Ohio in a DOS printout which identifies defendant as aforeign registered limited liability partnership. Equitable estoppel cannot apply where plaintiff cherry-picks which information to rely on and which facts to ignore. At best, the references to New York in the DOS printouts create an issue for plaintiff to investigate regarding the location of defendant’s principal place of business before commencing the instant action. And as stated above, the principle of equitable estoppel relies on fairness and it would be inherently unfair for defendant to be subject to general jurisdiction in New York because plaintiff relied exclusively on its own interpretation of information compiled by a third party (DOS) over which defendant had no control.”

“Plaintiffs reliance on the filings of other law firms does not compel a different outcome. The question is whether it was reasonable for plaintiff to think that defendant ‘s principal place of business is in New York. How other law firms may have filled out DOS’ forms does not establish that it was reasonable for plaintiff to summarily conclude that defendant moved its headquarters to New York especially given the other facts in this case. “