Opinion
9744 Index 152864/17
06-27-2019
BROTHERS PAC FOUR, LLC, etc., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. WAR ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, etc., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Gleason & Koatz, LLP, New York (John P. Gleason of counsel), for appellants.
Gleason & Koatz, LLP, New York (John P. Gleason of counsel), for appellants.
Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Webber, Oing, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered July 24, 2018, upon a California judgment against defendants and in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $ 275,586, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court correctly concluded that California had long-arm jurisdiction over the non-resident defendants, based upon their soliciting plaintiff in California by phone, exchanging drafts of the investor agreement by email, emailing status reports of the proposed venture, and flying to California to meet with plaintiff, conduct which cumulatively evinced that they purposefully availed themselves of the benefits and protection of California law, from which this dispute arose (see Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 [1985] ). In the circumstances, it is fair to require that defendants account in California for the consequences that arose from their activity ( id. at 473–74, 105 S.Ct. 2174 ). The burden therefore shifted to defendants to "present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable" ( id. at 477, 105 S.Ct. 2174 ). Defendants failed to meet that burden.