Kaufhold v. Cyclopian Music, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Precision Wellness, LLC v. Demetech Corp.

    21-CV-01244 (JMA) (ARL) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2022)   Cited 3 times

    One Ltd. v. GTE GmbH, No. 20-CV-2205, 2021 WL 1727611 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2021); Kaufhold v. Cyclopian Music, Inc., No. 10-CV-4588, 2010 WL 5094630, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2010) (finding no general personal jurisdiction where “the plaintiffs have not alleged that the defendants maintain an office, solicit business, keep bank accounts, own property, or have employees or agents in New York.”)

  2. Amarte U.S. Holdings, Inc. v. Bergdorf Goodman LLC

    24-cv-883 (AS) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2024)

    So on this basis, the Court finds that Amarte has made a prima-facie showing of jurisdiction. Kaufhold v. Cyclopian Music, Inc., 2010 WL 5094630, at *4 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2010) (“New York courts have found that selling merchandise through a website to New York residents is a transaction of business that may be sufficient to provide specific personal jurisdiction.”); Heritage Lace, Inc. v. Underwraps Costume Corp., 2019 WL 3858585, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2019). Now that claims related to PBD's sale of EYE-CONIC eyeshadow have been dismissed, before filing an amended complaint, Amarte should ensure that it has a good faith basis to allege that PBD has been selling the Luxie product to New York residents.

  3. Mayor v. Sankareh

    21-CV-10831 (PGG) (JW) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2023)

    Guccione v. Harrah's Mktg. Servs. Corp., No. 06-cv-4361 (PKL), 2009 WL 2337995, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2009) (Even though defendant advertised in New York and contracted for New York citizens to visit their casino, that still was not enough to serve as a basis for general jurisdiction.); Kaufhold v. Cyclopian Music, Inc., No. 10-cv-4588 (DLC), 2010 WL 5094630, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2010) (Even assuming defendant solicited business in New York, that did not constitute a sufficient basis for general personal jurisdiction.); 7 W. 57th St. Realty Co., LLC v. Citigroup, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-981 (PGG), 2015 WL 1514539, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2015) (“Plaintiff must demonstrate that [defendant's] suit-related conduct creates minimum contacts with New York, however, not simply that [defendant has] a presence here or conduct[s] business activities here in general.” (emphasis in original)). Thus, the Court does not have general jurisdiction over Defendant.