Infinity Staffing Solutions, LLC v. Greenlee

          ROBERT L. SALDUTTI, REBECCA K. MCDOWELL, SALDUTTI LLC, Attorneys for Plaintiff Infinity Staffing Solutions, LLC d/b/a Lyneer Staffing Solutions.

          TERENCE J. SWEENEY, Attorney for Defendants Richard A. Greenlee and Paramount Conversions LLC.

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         This 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.^[1] For the reasons stated below, this Court will deny Defendant Greenlee's Motion to Dismiss.

         BACKGROUND

         The 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 “Staffing Agreement”).

         Of import to the instant motion, the Staffing Agreement^[2]

         contained 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.)^[3]

         Although 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.

         After 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 Staffing Agreement.

         Therefore, 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 removal.

         On 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.

         ANALYSIS

         A. Subject ...