Opinion
99 Civ. 9286 (LLS)
January 21, 2000
MEMORANDUM ENDORSEMENT
Defendant U.S. Stock Transfer Corp. is not licensed to, and does not do business in New York, owns no real estate or other property in New York, and has no office, mailing address, bank account or telephone listing in New York. It has no employees or agents in New York, and neither its officers or employees have travelled to New York for any business purpose.
Its membership in a trade association located in New York is insufficient to subject defendant to jurisdiction here, see Armco Steel Co., L.P. v. CSX Corp., 790 F. Supp. 311, 319-20 (D.D.C. 1991); American Ass'n of Cruise Passengers v. Cunard Line Ltd., 691 F. Supp. 379 (D.D.C. 1987), as are its maintenance of an internet site which describes its clients and services, see Millennium Enters., Inc. v. Millennium Music, L.P., 33 F. Supp.2d 907, 910, 913-19 (D. Or. 1999), and the fact that four of its clients (who generate under 1% of its revenues) are located in New York. Defendant's activities all take place in California, which is where it placed the stop-transfer notice on its books and where it received a telephone call from plaintiff in New York. That does not subject U.S. Stock Transfer Corp. to jurisdiction here. While its action might foreseeably have consequences in New York, it does not amount to the transaction of business in New York or the causing of injury here. See Mareno v. Rowe, 910 F.2d 1043, 1046 (2d Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted. The Clerk will enter judgment dismissing the complaint with costs and disbursements to the defendant according to law.
So ordered.