Smart Warehousing, LLC v Lulla Accessories, Inc. |
2024 NY Slip Op 51505(U) |
Decided on October 30, 2024 |
Supreme Court, New York County |
Lebovits, J. |
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Smart Warehousing, LLC, Plaintiff,
against Lulla Accessories, Inc., and LULLA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants. |
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51 were read on this motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 52, 53, 54, [*2]55, 56, 57, 58, 59 were read on this motion to VACATE/STRIKE - NOTE OF ISSUE.
This is an action to domesticate a Kansas judgment obtained by plaintiff, Smart Warehousing, LLC, against defendants, Lulla Accessories, Inc., and Lulla International, Inc. On motion sequence 002, plaintiff moves under CPLR 3212 for summary judgment in its favor against defendants, seeking an award of $82,933.16 (plus interest). On motion sequence 003, defendants move to vacate plaintiff's note of issue. Plaintiff's motion is granted. Defendants' motion is denied.
In an action to domesticate a sister-state judgment, the New York court may not inquire "into the merits of" a judgment rendered in another state. (Buckeye Retirement Co., L.L.C., Ltd. v Lee, 41 AD3d 183, 183 [1st Dept 2007].) The court may, however, consider a party's argument against enforcement of the judgment on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction. (See id.) Defendants argue that the Kansas court has no personal jurisdiction—both as a matter of (i) Kansas's long-arm statute and minimum standards of constitutional due process, and (ii) Kansas's service requirements.[FN1] This court disagrees.
With respect to whether the Kansas courts had authority to exercise jurisdiction over defendants, it is undisputed that the underlying contract between the parties included a forum-selection clause consenting to the jurisdiction of the state courts in Johnson County, Kansas. (See NYSCEF No. 32 at ¶ 15.) Defendants do not challenge the validity (or enforceability) of this clause. And under Kansas law, consent to personal jurisdiction through a forum-selection clause is sufficient, without need to determine whether defendants would otherwise come within the scope of Kansas's long-arm statute or contacts with Kansas. (See Vanier v Ponsoldt, 251 Kan 88, 101 [1992].) Defendants' challenge to this aspect of personal jurisdiction is thus unavailing.
With respect to service, defendants argue that because they are not subject to statutory long-arm jurisdiction, the only valid method of service on them in New York (where service occurred) is service by publication; and that plaintiff did not satisfy the Kansas statutory standards for that mode of service. In response, plaintiff argues that it was entitled to (and did) serve defendants in New York, through the methods provided by Kansas law for serving corporations. This court agrees with plaintiff.
Because defendants consented to the jurisdiction of the Kansas state courts through the forum selection clause, they voluntarily subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of Kansas, making it permissible for plaintiff to serve defendants in New York by means other than service by publication. Defendants do not argue that plaintiff otherwise failed to serve them in New York, or that plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of its chosen method of service, or, indeed, that defendants failed to receive notice of the action in time to defend. At most, defendants' principals state, in conclusory terms, that they "dispute[] any proper service of process of a Kansas lawsuit to [their] knowledge." (NYSCEF No. 44 at ¶ 13 [aff. of Ranjit Lulla]; see also NYSCEF No. 45 at ¶ 13 [aff. of Bindya Lulla] [same].) That statement, standing alone, is insufficient to raise a dispute about the validity of service (and thus of personal jurisdiction).
Absent a colorable challenge to the jurisdiction of the Kansas courts, plaintiff is entitled [*3]to summary judgment in its favor. And given the grant of plaintiff's summary judgment motion, defendants' motion to vacate the note of issue is denied as academic.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (mot seq 002) is granted; and plaintiff is awarded a judgment of $82,933.16 against defendants, Lulla Accessories, Inc. and Lulla International, Inc., jointly and severally, with interest running at the statutory rate from December 20, 2021; plus costs and disbursements as taxed by the Clerk upon the submission of an appropriate bill of costs; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants' motion to vacate plaintiff's note of issue and certificate of readiness (mot seq 003) is denied as academic; and it is further
ORDERED that that plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order with notice of its entry on defendants, and on the office of the County Clerk (by the means set forth in the court's e-filing protocol, available on the e-filing page of the court's website, https://ww2.nycourts.gov/courts/1jd/supctmanh/E-Filing.shtml), which shall enter judgment accordingly.
DATE 10/30/2024