Personal Jurisdiction Determined in Suit for Legal Services

The California district court then decided that the applicable statute of limitations for Gurvey's claims were based on the law of New Jersey, where Gurvey had moved in 2002 and where the economic harm to her thus was deemed to have occurred. Judge Gonzalez then concluded that Gurvey's quantum meruit claims against Sandrew and Yapp for recovery of services rendered were barred by New Jersey's six-year statute of limitations.

But the district judge allowed the quantum meruit claim against Legends Films to proceed by noting: “Because [p]laintiff alleges that [d]efendants breached the contract in Nov. 2002, and she filed the Complaint on Oct. 28, 2008, it appears this cause of action is timely.” Under the same reasoning, the court refused to dismiss Gurvey's breach-of-contract claims against Sandrew, Yapp and Legends.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California determined, in a case transferred to it from a New York federal court, that the New York court properly exercised jurisdiction over California defendants, who had hired the plaintiff, a New York lawyer, for entertainment matters. Gurvey v. Legend Films Inc., 09-CV-942-IEG (JMA).

Defendants Barry Sandrew and Jeffrey Yapp first hired plaintiff Amy Gurvey for personal legal services, then to act as general counsel for their San Diego-based Legend Films, a restorer and colorizer of black-and-white movies and TV programs for re-release. But Legends terminated Gurvey's services in November 2002. She later filed suit in New York federal district court, in October 2008, alleging the defendants owed her stocks, $125,000 in salary and $100,000 in severance pay, as well as for her legal work for the individual defendants. The suit parties then stipulated to a transfer of the case to California.

Southern District of California Chief District Judge Irma E. Gonzalez found “Amenable Defendants' [i.e., Legends, Sandrew and Yapp's] contacts with New York were 'purposeful' and that there is a 'substantial relationship' between them and the [p]laintiff's claims. ' Specifically, Amenable Defendants engaged the services of a New York attorney, who was licensed in New York, and who they knew would perform the majority of her services for them in New York. Even though the subject matter of these services might have not focused solely on New York law, the above-mentioned contacts are sufficient to fall within the purview of [long-arm statute] N.Y. C.P.L.R. '302(a).” Judge Gonzalez further noted that: “Amenable Defendants in this case are residents of California and claim that they have never set foot in New York. ' [But] Amenable Defendants sought out
[p]laintiff's services and directed telephone conversations and [e-mails] to New York throughout their attorney-client relationship. ' Accordingly, because Amenable Defendants availed themselves of the benefits of the New York attorney-client law when they had [p]laintiff perform legal services for them in New York, and because they could have reasonably expected to defend a suit arising out of that relationship in New York, the [c]ourt finds that they were subject to personal jurisdiction in New York.”

The California district court then decided that the applicable statute of limitations for Gurvey's claims were based on the law of New Jersey, where Gurvey had moved in 2002 and where the economic harm to her thus was deemed to have occurred. Judge Gonzalez then concluded that Gurvey's quantum meruit claims against Sandrew and Yapp for recovery of services rendered were barred by New Jersey's six-year statute of limitations.

But the district judge allowed the quantum meruit claim against Legends Films to proceed by noting: “Because [p]laintiff alleges that [d]efendants breached the contract in Nov. 2002, and she filed the Complaint on Oct. 28, 2008, it appears this cause of action is timely.” Under the same reasoning, the court refused to dismiss Gurvey's breach-of-contract claims against Sandrew, Yapp and Legends.