IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

FLORENCE DIVISION

JEFFREY ADAMS and JO ANNA )

ADAMS, )

) Civil Action No.: 4:18-cv-00477-RBH

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

ADELINE BUONI; ADELINA, LLC; )

and URBAN LANDSCAPE & TREE )

SPECIALIST, LLC )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

On or about January 11, 2018, Plaintiffs filed this action in the State Court of Common

Pleas in Horry County, South Carolina. On February 14, 2018, Defendants removed this matter

to this Court based upon diversity of citizenship in that Plaintiffs are citizens of South Carolina,

Defendants are citizens of Ohio, and further, that the amount in controversy, $100,000.00, meets

the jurisdictional limit. [ECF #1, p. 1]. Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint or in the Alternative, For Change of Venue. [ECF #5]. Both

parties have had the opportunity to extensively brief the issues raised in the Motion to Dismiss,

and this Court has thoroughly considered all pleadings filed in this case. Plaintiffs have indicated

1

in their response to Defendants’ Motion that they do not oppose the change of venue, and request

that this Court transfer the case to the United States District Court for the South District of Ohio,

Eastern Division.

Under Local Civil Rule 7.09 (D.S.C.), “hearings on motions may be ordered by the Court in its discretion. Unless

1

so ordered, motions may be determined without a hearing.” Upon review of the briefs, the Court finds that a hearing

is not necessary.

Case: 2:18-cv-00386-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/13/18 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 53
Factual Background and Procedural History

As alleged in the Complaint, in August of 2016, Defendant Adelina Buoni (“Buoni”)

entered into an agreement with Plaintiffs whereby Plaintiffs agreed to loan her $60,000.00. [ECF

#1-1, p. 3]. Defendant Buoni allegedly purchased a truck and landscaping equipment for

Defendant Urban Landscape & Tree Specialist, LLC n/k/a Adelina, LLC with the loaned money.

[ECF #1-1, p. 3]. According to Plaintiffs, Defendant Buoni agreed to purchase two Certificates

of Deposit in the amounts of $30,000.00 and $10,000.00 and borrow against them to purchase the

truck needed for the landscaping business. [ECF #1-1, p. 3]. The two Certificates of Deposit were

purchased in the name of Defendant Urban Landscape & Tree Specialist, LLC (“Urban

Landscape”). [ECF #1-1, p. 3]. In November of 2016, Plaintiffs loaned Defendant Buoni an

additional $40,000.00 to purchase additional equipment. [ECF #1-1, p. 3]. Plaintiffs allege that

Defendant Buoni deposited $10,000.00 into her personal banking account and transferred the title

of several pieces of equipment into her personal name. [ECF #1-1, p. 4]. Plaintiffs allege that

the total amounts now due on the loans equals $100,000.00, plus interest, late fees, attorney’s fees

and costs. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have breached the agreement made with Plaintiffs by

failing to re-pay the loans when due. [ECF #1-1, p. 4]. As a result, Plaintiffs contend they are

entitled to actual, special, and consequential damages for this breach of agreement. [ECF #1-1,

p. 4]. 

On March 6, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. [ECF #5-1]. Defendants assert that they are

citizens of the state of Ohio. [ECF #5-1, p. 1]. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot establish

2

Case: 2:18-cv-00386-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/13/18 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 54
general jurisdiction because they are neither incorporated nor have its principal place of business

in South Carolina, and because their contacts with South Carolina are not continuous and

systematic sufficient to give rise to jurisdiction. [ECF #5-1, p. 3]. Defendants also argue that

Plaintiffs cannot prove the existence of specific jurisdiction because the claims alleged in the

Complaint do not arise out of any activities directed at the State of South Carolina, they do not

conduct business in this State, nor have they purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of

conducting activities within the State. [ECF #5-1, pp. 4-5]. Defendants argue that even if

Plaintiffs could prove specific jurisdiction, exercising such jurisdiction in this case would not be

constitutionally reasonable. [ECF #5-1, p. 5]. Finally, Defendants assert that should this Court

deny their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants seek alternative relief in the form of a transfer of venue

to the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 and 1406(a).

[ECF #5-1, p. 5].

On March 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. [ECF #6]. Plaintiffs allege

within the Amended Complaint that Defendants made several calls and texts to Plaintiffs, who are

South Carolina residents, to discuss loan terms and conditions. [ECF #6, p. 4]. Further, Plaintiffs

allege that Defendants traveled to Horry County, South Carolina to pick up the loan proceeds, and

loan payments were made to Plaintiffs residing in South Carolina. [ECF #6, p. 4]. Specifically,

Plaintiffs allege that one of the checks provided to Defendants stated that it was a “loan” and it

was accepted by Defendants in South Carolina, thereby creating a lender/borrower relationship in

South Carolina. [ECF #6, p. 4]. Thereafter, On March 19, 2018, Plaintiffs responded to the

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Change of Venue. While Plaintiffs argue that they have made

3

Case: 2:18-cv-00386-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/13/18 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 55
a prima facie showing that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, and further, that

dismissal based upon these grounds would be premature, Plaintiffs expressly consent to

Defendants’ request for change of venue. [ECF #8, p. 3]. On March 23, 2018, Defendants filed

their Answer and Third Party Complaint to this lawsuit. [ECF #9]. To date, no other parties have

been served or have appeared in this lawsuit. 

Conclusion

In light of the fact that Plaintiffs expressly state that they do not oppose Defendants’

request for Change of Venue, this Court GRANTS in part, the alternative relief sought, for

Change of Venue to the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. For the reasons stated above,

this Court finds Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied without prejudice in light of the fact

that the Parties agree to the transfer of venue. [ECF #5]. The Clerk is directed to transfer this

case to the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina s/ R. Bryan Harwell 

April 13, 2018 R. Bryan Harwell

United States District Judge

4

Case: 2:18-cv-00386-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/13/18 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 56