24.12.2012 Views

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New ...

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New ...

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12 Entered 08/17/12 14:29:55 Main Document<br />

Pg 103 of 133<br />

IV. ALL MOVING DEFENDANTS WAIVED PERSONAL JURISDICTION<br />

DEFENSES BY PARTICIPATING IN THE INSTANT AND RELATED<br />

PROCEEDINGS<br />

Participatory factors support finding the Moving Defendants’ waiver of any objection to<br />

personal jurisdiction in this adversary proceeding. See Cohmad, 418 B.R. at 81 (citing In re<br />

Deak & Co., Inc., 63 B.R. 422, 431 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986)). In Cohmad, this Court found that<br />

the defendants “effectively consented to personal jurisdiction by purposefully availing<br />

themselves of the protections afforded by United States bankruptcy law.” Id.<br />

The Moving UBS Defendants, Moving Access Defendants, Delandmeter, and Luxalpha<br />

waived any objection to personal jurisdiction by seeking affirmative relief in the District Court<br />

by moving to withdraw the reference in June and July 2011. [S.D.N.Y. ECF No. 1, 6, 8.] See<br />

Hamilton v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 197 F.3d 58, 61 (2d. Cir. 1999) (defendant forfeited challenge to<br />

personal jurisdiction where he “joined with other defendants” in seeking transfer of case to<br />

another district court); Deak, 63 B.R. at 431–32 (defendant waived personal jurisdiction “when<br />

he filed his notice of appearance”); Herbst Gaming, Inc. v. Insurcorp. (In re Zante, Inc.), No. 10<br />

cv 00231 (RCJ) (RAM), 2010 WL 5477768, at *7 (D. Nev. Dec. 29, 2010) (noting that<br />

Defendants submitted to jurisdiction by filing a motion to withdraw the reference and motion for<br />

summary judgment, “which act constituted a general appearance”). The Moving UBS<br />

Defendants, Moving Luxalpha Director Defendants, Moving Access Defendants, and<br />

Delandmeter then sought and received affirmative relief in the District Court to dismiss the<br />

common law claims for lack of standing. [S.D.N.Y. ECF No. 17, 20, 36.] The District Court’s<br />

November 1, 2011 decision in favor of each of the Moving Defendants’ interests is now on<br />

appeal before the Second Circuit, where it has been opposed by counsel for the Moving<br />

83

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!