United States District Court, D. New Jersey
INFINITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC, d/b/a LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, Plaintiff,
RICHARD A. GREENLEE and PARAMOUNT CONVERSIONS LLC, Defendants.
L. SALDUTTI, REBECCA K. MCDOWELL, SALDUTTI LLC, Attorneys for
Plaintiff Infinity Staffing Solutions, LLC d/b/a Lyneer
TERENCE J. SWEENEY, Attorney for Defendants Richard A.
Greenlee and Paramount Conversions LLC.
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
case concerns a breach of contract and alter ego claim
arising out of a staffing agreement between a New Jersey
limited liability company and a Mississippi limited liability
company and its sole member. Presently before the Court is a
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
(“Motion to Dismiss”) filed by Defendant George
Richard Greenlee, Jr. For the reasons stated below, this Court
will deny Defendant Greenlee's Motion to Dismiss.
Court bases this statement of facts upon Plaintiff's
(“Lyneer's”) complaint and the parties'
submissions. Sometime in mid-2015, it appears that Greenlee,
on behalf of Paramount Conversions LLC
(“Paramount”), approached Lyneer about staffing
needs for a project. In June 2015, on behalf of Paramount,
Greenlee signed a staffing agreement with Lyneer (the
import to the instant motion, the Staffing
a “Forum Selection Clause.” This clause states:
Except as set forth in section 9b below, and except with
regard to those claims which are subject to arbitration as
provided in section 4d of the Staffing Agreement, any and all
claims, causes of action, or lawsuits filed by or against
LYNEER related to the Staffing Agreement or any other matter
arising directly or indirectly from the Staffing Agreement or
the Parties' obligations thereunder, including but not
limited to claims to enforce the Staffing Agreement, as well
as tort or statutory claims arising out of or related to the
Parties' association as a result of the Staffing
Agreement, shall be filed in the state or federal courts
located in the State of New Jersey. The Parties irrevocably
submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts, and
hereby waive any jurisdictional, venue, or inconvenient forum
objections to such courts.
(Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. D.)
there does not appear to be a “section 9b, ” the
Staffing Agreement does include a “section 4d.”
It provides a procedure by which the parties must lodge and
resolve invoice disputes. These disputes, if unable to be
settled among the parties, are subject to binding arbitration
before the American Arbitration Association.
executing the agreement, Lyneer alleges it provided Paramount
with employees and labor pursuant to the Staffing Agreement.
According to the complaint, it appears Greenlee was not paid
by the third-party running the project. As a result, Greenlee
has not paid all or part of Lyneer's fees under the
Lyneer brought a complaint against Paramount and Greenlee on
February 7, 2017. It was originally removed to this Court on
November 1, 2017 under a different docket number,
1:17-cv-10650 (NLH/JS). Plaintiff challenged removal, and
this Court eventually remanded this matter back to state
court on June 26, 2017. It was against removed to this Court
on August 9, 2018. This time, Plaintiff has not challenged
August 24, 2018, Greenlee filed his Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition. Paramount filed an
answer shortly thereafter. Greenlee did not file a reply
within the specified time. Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss
is ripe for adjudication.