The firm’s New Jersey office argued a Motion to Dismiss on behalf of a client which was granted. The attorneys on the matter acted quickly to dismiss the case on the basis of lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction shortly after the matter was commenced. This was an expedient victory, as pre-discovery motions to dismiss are rarely granted.
Plaintiff originally commenced an action in the District Court of New Jersey alleging principally causes of action sounding in negligence and personal injury. The matter was ultimately dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint in New York state court, effectively conceding that there was a lack of jurisdiction over the firm’s client in New Jersey.
Partner Richard Wedinger filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the court had neither personal nor subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Wedinger argued that Plaintiff failed to properly serve a complaint on his client. He was able to demonstrate that he had made multiple attempts to receive a copy of the affidavit of service to no avail. He additionally argued that the action was barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § § 11 and 29 which deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction. As an employee, Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy is Workers Compensation. The Workers’ Compensation Law provides the exclusive remedy for an employee seeking damages for unintentional injuries which he incurs in the course of employment. Although an intentional tort may give rise to a cause of action outside the realm of Workers’ Compensation, the complaint must allege an intentional and deliberate act by the employer directed at causing harm to this particular employee.
The court granted the Motion to Dismiss stating that Plaintiff had failed to make a prima facie showing that our client was subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court. The court further held that without personal jurisdiction, it lacked the authority to consider any other arguments in the matter.