Impulse Marketing Group, Inc. v. National Small Business Alliance, Inc. et al Doc.

7
1 0 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 5 TUECase
1 2 : 1 1:05-cv-07776-KMK
6 FAX 2 1 2 6 8 3 9 1 8 1 Document 7 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 1 of 2

THE LUSTIGMAN
ATTORNEYS
dilU&OENDORSF!
149 MADISON AVENUE
SUITE 805
NEW YORK, N Y 10016-6713
TEL:(212) 683-9180 - FAX: (212) 683-9181
www.1ustigmanfim.com

SHELDON S.LUSTIGMAN* ADMITTED IN NY & NJ

ANDREW B. LUSTIGMAN*
SCOTT A. SHAFFER*
ADAM 2. SOLOMON

iDOC#: 1
By F a c s i m i l e : (212) 805-7968
11 DOCUMENT 11
Hon. Kenneth M . Karas
United S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Judge
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
D a n i e l P a t r i c k Moynihan C o u r t h o u s e
500 P e a r l Street DATE FILED: 1 ~ / d o i
N e w York, N Y 1 0 0 0 7

Re: I m p u l s e M a r k e t i n g Group, I n c . v. N a t i o n a l S m a l l
Business Alliance, Inc. and D i r e c t Contact M e d i a ,
Inc., Case N o . 05 CV 7776 ( S . D . N . Y . )

Dear J u d g e K a r a s :

T h i s o f f i c e r e p r e s e n t s t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e above-
r e f e r e n c e d a c t i o n . I am w r i t i n g t o c l a r i f y my p r e v i o u s l e t t e r t o
t h e Court. Pursuant t o t h e Court's i n d i v i d u a l p r a c t i c e s , I
h e r e b y r e q u e s t a pre-motion c o n f e r e n c e on b e h a l f of D i r e c t
C o n t a c t Media, I n c . ("DCM"). I wish t o f i l e a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s
t h e C o m p l a i n t f o r l a c k of p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a n d f o r f a i l u r e
t o s t a t e a c l a i m on which r e l i e f c a n be g r a n t e d . (The r e m a i n i n g
d e f e n d a n t , N a t i o n a l Small B u s i n e s s A l l i a n c e , Lnc. ("NSBArr) w i l l
f i l e a n answer and c o u n t e r c l a i m s t o d a y ) ,

A l t h o u g h none o f t h e t h r e e p a r t i e s r e s i d e i n t h i s d i s t r i c t ,
p l a i n t i f f I m p u l s e M a r k e t i n g Group, I n c . ( " I M G N ) a n d NSBA e n t e r e d
i n t o a c o n t r a c t d e s i g n a t i n g t h e c o u r t s of N e w York a s t h e forum
f o r any d i s p u t e s a r i s i n g thereunder. DCM was n o t a p a r t y t o
t h a t c o n t r a c t , nor any o t h e r , w i t h I M G .

The C o m p l a i n t a l l e g e s NSBA b r e a c h e d a c o n t r a c t t h a t c a l l e d
f o r I M G t o p r o v i d e I n t e r n e t m a r k e t i n g s e r v i c e s t o NSBA. I M G i s a
Nevada c o r p o r a t i o n , NSBA i s a D i s t r i c t of Columbia c o r p o r a t i o n
and DCM i s a C a l i f o r n i a c o r p o r a t i o n . DCM n e v e r a g r e e d t o

NJ Office: 158 Windham Road, Hillsdale, NJ 07642 (201) 358-0948

Dockets.Justia.com
 1 0 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 5 TUECase 1:05-cv-07776-KMK
12:16 FAX 2 1 2 6 8 3 9 1 8 1 Document 7 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 2 of 2

Hon. Kenneth M. Karas

October 18, 2 0 0 5
Page 2 of 2

litigate here and lacks the required minimum contacts with the
State of New York, so there is no legal basis for the exercise
of personal jurisdiction over it.

However, IMG has named DCM as a defendant, on the alleged

basis that DCM is the alter-ego of NSBA. The alter-ego claim is
doomed to fail because the Complaint alleges no facts (and none
exist) to suggest that DCM dominated NSBA or that any such
domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against IMG.

DCM is therefore entitled to dismissal from this action

under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for
failure to state a claim. DCM, a marketing agency retained by
NSBA, has no connection whatsoever to the contract upon which
this lawsuit is based. T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between co-defendants
NSBA and DCM i s based s t r i c t l y i n c o n t r a c t . They are not alter-
egos and there is no link between the two defendants in this
case capable of supporting a cause of action against DCM. Thus,
the connection between NSBA and DCM falls far short of the high
standard required under either New York or California law to
pierce the corporate veil.

Dismissal of DCM from this action is also required by

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). There are no facts alleged in the
Complaint capable of sustaining personal jurisdiction over DCM,
a foreign corporation lacking contacts to New York. Even the
Complaint admits that DCM has its principal place of business in
California. DCM has no continuous presence in New York. It is
neither "doing businessN nor "transacting business" in New York
with respect to the allegations of the Complaint. DCM has none
of the indicia of presence that courts look to when deciding
whether personal jurisdiction exists: it has no property, bank
accounts, offices, facilities, etc. in this state.

I have spoken to plaintiff's counsel, Sean Moynihan, and

informed him that, contrary to my last letter, the Court intends
to adhere to its individual practices. Mr. Moynihan indicated he
does not object to an extension of time for DCM to file its
response until the pre-motion conference is held.

5 qrc dbrc=j.J {O c, / ! C - N ~ L & Respectfully yours,

jqcfina gh Not is -I l.05 4~e i ~ X n d ~ - /

i),,rc( (hdsc,! hdk ' 5 3j)K {6 Q S W ~ I 01 d P I i ' l ~ Scott Shaffe

cc: Sean Moynihan, Esq. (212-753-8101)
c h k ~ l d -;fhlrr