Bridge Tournament Directors Allowed to Sue for Overtime Claims in Chosen Forum
This case involves bridge tournament directors who sued a bridge league for failure to pay overtime. Apparently, bridge tournaments occurred in many states, including Connecticut. The bridge league was headquartered out of Tennessee.
The Plaintiffs filed suit in Connecticut. Defendants moved to dismiss for a lack of personal jurisdiction, or alternatively, sought to transfer the case to Tennessee.
The Court stated that Connecticut would proper venue (1) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Connecticut and (2) the bridge league is subject to personal jurisdiction in Connecticut. Plaintiffs showed that they performed work in Connecticut in a significant number of tournaments.
The Court notes that Connecticut’s long arm statute provides that a foreign corporation will be subject to suit in Connecticut if the cause of action arises out of any contract made in Connecticut or to be performed in Connecticut. Thus, because the Plaintiffs have an employment contract with Defendant and the bridge league assigned Plaintiffs to work in Connecticut, jurisdiction in Connecticut is proper.
In the alternative, the bridge league argued that the case should be transferred. Ultimately, however the Court finds that it would be more of a financial hardship on Plaintiffs to litigate in Tennessee and that in a world with copy machines, electronic discovery and emails, litigation in Connecticut is a “non-issue” for the bridge league.
The case is Marcus v. American Contract Bridge League, 562 F.Supp.2d 360 (D.Conn. June 20, 2008).
The Plaintiffs filed suit in Connecticut. Defendants moved to dismiss for a lack of personal jurisdiction, or alternatively, sought to transfer the case to Tennessee.
The Court stated that Connecticut would proper venue (1) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Connecticut and (2) the bridge league is subject to personal jurisdiction in Connecticut. Plaintiffs showed that they performed work in Connecticut in a significant number of tournaments.
The Court notes that Connecticut’s long arm statute provides that a foreign corporation will be subject to suit in Connecticut if the cause of action arises out of any contract made in Connecticut or to be performed in Connecticut. Thus, because the Plaintiffs have an employment contract with Defendant and the bridge league assigned Plaintiffs to work in Connecticut, jurisdiction in Connecticut is proper.
In the alternative, the bridge league argued that the case should be transferred. Ultimately, however the Court finds that it would be more of a financial hardship on Plaintiffs to litigate in Tennessee and that in a world with copy machines, electronic discovery and emails, litigation in Connecticut is a “non-issue” for the bridge league.
The case is Marcus v. American Contract Bridge League, 562 F.Supp.2d 360 (D.Conn. June 20, 2008).
