Filed: Mar. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 14-2122 Grundstein v. Eide UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A
Summary: 14-2122 Grundstein v. Eide UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A ..
More
14-2122
Grundstein v. Eide
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL
APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY
CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the
3 City of New York, on the 18th day of March, two thousand fifteen.
4
5 PRESENT:
6 DENNIS JACOBS,
7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
8 Circuit Judges,
9 GARY L. SHARPE,*
10 District Judge.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 Robert Grundstein,
14
15 Plaintiff-Appellant,
16
17 v. 14-2122
18
19 Linda Eide, et al.,
20
21 Defendants-Appellees.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Robert Grundstein, pro se,
25 Morrisville, Vermont.
26
* Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York, sitting by designation.
1
1 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Matthew S. Borick, Esq., Downs
2 Rachlin Martin PLLC, Burlington,
3 Vermont.
4
5 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont
6 (Reiss, C.J.).
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
8 DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
9 Appellant Robert Grundstein, pro se, appeals from the judgment dismissing his complaint
10 for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants, all of them residents of Washington State. We
11 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and
12 the issues on appeal.
13 We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal
14 jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(2). Metro. Life Ins. Co. v.
15 Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 567 (2d Cir. 1996). In ruling on a motion under Rule
16 12(b)(2), a district court “must determine whether there is jurisdiction over the defendant under
17 the relevant forum state’s laws.” Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171
18 F.3d 779, 784 (2d Cir. 1999). The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction
19 exists. Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp.,
21 F.3d 502, 507 (2d Cir. 1994).
20 However, in reviewing a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, we construe all pleadings
21 and affidavits in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s
22 favor, DiStefano v. Carozzi N. Am., Inc.,
286 F.3d 81, 84 (2d Cir. 2001) (per curiam), though we
23 need not “accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation,” In re Terrorist
2
1 Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 659, 673 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and
2 citations omitted).
3 Plaintiff failed to demonstrate minimum contacts with Vermont sufficient to support
4 personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Plaintiff contended that personal jurisdiction was
5 proper under the “effects test” applied by the Supreme Court in Calder v. Jones. We agree with
6 the district court’s distinction of that authority: Grundstein failed to show that the defendants’
7 conduct in this case was “calculated to cause injury” to him in Vermont. See
465 U.S. 783, 791
8 (1984).
9 Unlike certain cases on which Grundstein relies, the defendants in this case have not
10 voluntarily subjected themselves to personal jurisdiction by filing an action to enforce a foreign
11 judgment. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough opinion
12 and order.
13 We have considered all of Grundstein’s arguments and find them to be without merit.
14 Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3
