Jurisdictional Dispute and Motion to Dismiss
After removing the case to federal court in May, Porzio Bromberg quickly filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the firm had no jurisdictional ties to Louisiana. In their June filing, the firm contended that:
-
It has no physical presence or operations in Louisiana
-
All work was performed from New Jersey or Houston
-
The only relevant out-of-state activity was a single board meeting held in Houston related to Kotler’s business
The defense emphasized that Porzio’s interactions with Kotler’s company — a Delaware-registered LLC — did not confer personal jurisdiction upon the Louisiana court.
Joint Motion to Transfer: A Practical Resolution
Following jurisdictional discovery, both sides agreed that New Jersey is the appropriate forum for the case. In their joint transfer motion, the parties cited several factors supporting the move:
“The interest of justice is served: because all parties consent to the venue of United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; because the parties agree that, and all facts known to the parties suggest that, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has jurisdiction; because there is greater access to witnesses and evidence in New Jersey; because the New Jersey District Court for the District of New Jersey is less congested; and because no parties’ rights would be prejudiced by the transfer.”
Additionally, Porzio Bromberg and Wheatley-Liss acknowledged that the motion to dismiss would become moot upon transfer, making further litigation in Louisiana unnecessary.
