Guy M. Turner, Inc. v. Win Holdings International, Inc. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO DISMISS # 110

FACTS

The plaintiff, Guy M. Turner, Inc., brought suit against the defendant, Win Holdings International, Inc., to enforce a judgment that was rendered in its favor by the North Carolina General Court of Justice.¹  The action was originally filed in the judicial district of New Haven, but was transferred to this court on September 22, 2008.   On June 30, 2008, the defendant moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case as the plaintiff is not an entity registered with the Connecticut secretary of state in compliance with General Statutes § 33-921(a).   The motion was denied by the court, Peck, J., on December 15, 2008, on the ground that the plaintiff is not transacting business in Connecticut within the meaning of General Statutes §§ 33-920 and 33-921.

On March 3, 2009, the defendant filed its second motion to dismiss, this time arguing that the North Carolina court that issued the foreign judgment lacked personal jurisdiction over it.   In support of its motion, the defendant has attached the affidavit of Victor Winogradow, one of its representatives.   The plaintiff filed an objection to the motion to dismiss on March 12, 2009, arguing that the defendant's motion is untimely and improper as the defendant had already filed a motion to dismiss that specifically raised an issue unrelated to this court's subject matter jurisdiction.   This matter was heard at short calendar on June 1, 2010.

DISCUSSION

“A motion to dismiss ․ properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court, essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court ․ A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Caruso v. Bridgeport, 285 Conn. 618, 627, 941 A.2d 266 (2008).   Further “[w]hen a [trial] court decides a jurisdictional question raised by a pretrial motion to dismiss, it must consider the allegations of the complaint in their most favorable light ․ In this regard, a court must take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint, including those facts necessarily implied from the allegations, construing them in a manner most favorable to the pleader.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  State v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., 286 Conn. 454, 464, 944 A.2d 315 (2008).

In its motion to dismiss, the defendant argues that it did not have sufficient minimum contacts with the state of North Carolina to allow the North Carolina court to exercise in personam jurisdiction over it.   It contends that a single transaction within North Carolina is insufficient to confer jurisdiction over a party.   Because the North Carolina court lacked personal jurisdiction over it, the defendant contends that this court should grant its motion to dismiss.

The defendant's argument in the present case is nearly identical to the argument posed by the defendant in Bank of the West v. CT Weight & Wellness, LLC, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV 09 5025776 (December 8, 2009, Zoarski, J.T.R.).   In Bank of the West, the plaintiff sought to enforce a judgment that was rendered in its favor by a California court, and the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction.  Id. The defendant sought to have the case dismissed on the basis that he “did not have sufficient contacts, ties or relations with California to allow the California court to exercise personal jurisdiction over him.”  Id. The court ultimately held that “the defendant's argument for dismissal is procedurally improper as the defendant seeks to challenge the California court's jurisdiction over him.   The defendant's argument that the foreign court lacked personal jurisdiction is aimed at addressing the merits of the current action and is not procedurally proper.”   Id. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.  Id.

In denying the motion to dismiss, the court relied on recent appellate authority.  “In J. Corda Construction, Inc. v. Zaleski Corp., 98 Conn.App. 518, 527-28, 911 A.2d 309 (2006), the Appellate Court stated that a party's challenge to a foreign court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over it is not properly accomplished through a motion to dismiss.   Rather, a challenge to a foreign court's personal jurisdiction over a party should be raised as a special defense.”  Id. “[A] debtor who seeks to challenge the validity of a foreign judgment ․ may do so only by raising [c]onstitutionally permissible defenses ․ that destroy the full faith and credit obligation owed to a foreign judgment ․ Such defenses include lack of personal jurisdiction or lack of due process ․ A party can therefore defend against the enforcement of a foreign judgment on the ground that the court that rendered the judgment lacked personal jurisdiction ․” (Citations omitted;  emphasis added;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  J. Corda Construction, Inc. v. Zaleski Corp., 98 Conn.App. 523-24.

In the present case, the defendant's argument for dismissal is also procedurally improper as it seeks to challenge the North Carolina court's jurisdiction rather than this court's jurisdiction.   The defendant may raise as a defense to the present action that the North Carolina court lacked personal jurisdiction over it, but it may not seek a dismissal on such grounds.   Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.

Martin, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Judgment was rendered in Guy M. Turner, Inc. v. Win Holdings International, Inc., North Carolina General Court of Justice, District Court Division, No. 07-CVD-2120 (March 3, 2008, Vincent, J.)..  FN1. Judgment was rendered in Guy M. Turner, Inc. v. Win Holdings International, Inc., North Carolina General Court of Justice, District Court Division, No. 07-CVD-2120 (March 3, 2008, Vincent, J.).

Martin, Robert A., J.