Williamson v HAPN Holdings, Inc.

2024 NY Slip Op 31692(U)

May 15, 2024

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 155908/2023

Judge: Lisa S. Headley

Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York

State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official

publication.
155908/2023 WILLIAMSON, MELANIE ET AL vs. HAPN HOLDINGS, INC.

Motion No. 002

Page 1 of 4

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28

were read on this motion to/for DISMISS .

In the complaint, the plaintiffs, Melanie Williamson, individually and as Administrator of 

the Estate of decedent John Michael Williamson, John Michael Williamson, Sr., and Desmond 

Theel, as personal representative of the estate of decedent Sara Beck (collectively, “plaintiffs”)

allege that on February 26, 2022, the decedent Sara Beck’s ex-paramour, Dustin Johnson, placed 

a Spytec GPS GL300 tracker, which was designed and manufactured by the defendant, on her 

vehicle in Belton, Missouri. Dustin Jackson then tracked Sara Beck’s location with the Spytec GPS 

application on his phone to the decedent, John Michael Williamson’s home in Lenexa, Kansas, 

where he killed both of them, and subsequently killed himself. On July 5, 2023, the plaintiffs 

commenced this action against defendant HAPN Holdings, Inc. formally known as Spytec GPS 

Inc. (“HAPN Holdings”) for negligence, strict products liability, and negligent infliction of 

emotional distress.

Before the Court is the motion filed by defendant, HAPN Holdings, for an Order to dismiss

the plaintiffs’ Complaint, pursuant to CPLR §327(a), for forum non conveniens, and alternatively, 

to dismiss the plaintiffs’ causes of actions for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional 

distress in Counts 1, 2 and 4 of the Complaint, and for such other and further relief the Court deems 

just and proper. Plaintiffs filed opposition to the motion, and the defendant filed a reply. 

On February 27, 2024, the Court held a virtual conference, and based upon the foregoing 

documents, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted for the reasons stated herein.

Motion to Dismiss on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds

CPLR §327(a) sets forth the standard for dismissal based on forum non conveniens. “CPLR 

§327(a) codifies the common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens and permits a court, in its 

discretion, to dismiss an action where ‘it is determined that the action, although jurisdictionally 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. LISA S. HEADLEY PART 28M

Justice 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 155908/2023

 MOTION DATE 02/27/2024

 MOTION SEQ. NO. 002

DECISION + ORDER ON 

MOTION

MELANIE WILLIAMSON, JOHN MICHAEL WILLIAMSON, 

DESMOND THEEL

 Plaintiff, 

- v -

HAPN HOLDINGS, INC.,

 Defendant. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

INDEX NO. 155908/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/15/2024

1 of 4 [* 1]
155908/2023 WILLIAMSON, MELANIE ET AL vs. HAPN HOLDINGS, INC.

Motion No. 002

Page 2 of 4

sound, would be better adjudicated elsewhere’.” Bangladesh Bank v. Rizal Commercial Banking 

Corp., 208 N.Y.S.3d 2, 15 (1st Dep’t 2024) (internal citations omitted).

Specifically, CPLR §327(a) states: 

“[w]hen the court finds that in the interest of substantial justice the action 

should be heard in another forum, the court, on the motion of any party, may 

stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be 

just. The domicile or residence in this state of any party to the action shall 

not preclude the court from staying or dismissing the action.”

“A plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed, even when plaintiff is not a New 

York resident.” Id; see also, OrthoTec, LLC v. Healthpoint Capital, LLC, 84 A.D.3d 702, 702, 924 

N.Y.S.2d 78 (1st Dep’t 2011). Therefore, a defendant seeking dismissal on forum non conveniens

grounds has a “heavy burden of establishing that New York is an inconvenient forum and that a 

substantial nexus between New York and the action is lacking.” Elmaliach v. Bank of China Ltd., 

110 A.D.3d 192, 208, 971 N.Y.S.2d 504 (1st Dep’t 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In support of the motion to dismiss, pursuant to CPLR §327(a), the defendant argues that 

the facts in this case demonstrate that Kansas and/or Missouri is the proper venue for this suit, 

rather than New York. Defendant contends that HAPN Holdings is a domestic corporation duly 

organized under the laws of New York, however this action has no substantial nexus with the State 

of New York. Defendant argues that since the plaintiffs do not reside in New York, the decedents 

did not reside in New York, and the decedents’ estates are not in New York, they do not have any 

connection to New York. Plaintiff Melanie Williamson resides in Kansas, and administers the 

estate of her son, decedent John Michael Williamson, who also was domiciled in Kansas when he 

died. Plaintiff Desmond Theel resides in Missouri, and administers the estate of his daughter, Sarah 

Beck, who was also domiciled in Missouri when she died. 

Defendant argues that the First Department has held that “the residence of a plaintiff, while 

not the sole determining factor on a motion for dismissal on the grounds of forum non conveniens

is generally the most significant factor in the equation.” See, Thor Gallery at South Dekalb, LLC 

v. Reliance Mediaworks (USA) Inc., 131 A.D.3d 431, 432 (1st Dep’t 2015). Defendant also argues 

that litigating this action in New York is inappropriate because the sequence of events, and the 

“situs” of the crime occurred in Missouri or Kansas. Defendant emphasizes case law where New 

York courts have held dismissal was granted, in the Court’s discretion, in a strict products liability 

personal injury action on the basis of forum non conveniens where the situs of the accident occurred 

in Ohio. See, Avery v. Pfizer, Inc., 68 A.D. 3d 633, 634 (1st Dep’t 2009). 

In addition, the defendant contends that adjudicating this action in New York would present 

a substantial hardship to potential non-party witnesses and key witnesses, including members of 

the decedents’ estate, and local law enforcement officials who are either in Missouri or Kansas. 

Defendant argues that this suit should proceed in Missouri or Kansas, because the New York 

connection in this case is minimal. Furthermore, defendant contends New York choice of law 

jurisprudence establishes that the governing tort law in this suit would not be New York law, but 

INDEX NO. 155908/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/15/2024

2 of 4 [* 2]
155908/2023 WILLIAMSON, MELANIE ET AL vs. HAPN HOLDINGS, INC.

Motion No. 002

Page 3 of 4

Missouri or Kansas law. Therefore, this Court would bear the burden of applying another state’s 

substantive law, which should be another factor to consider in favor of dismissal.

In opposition, plaintiffs contend that upon filing this action in New York, the parties 

conferred and plaintiffs filed a new action in the Circuit Court of Cass County, Missouri, however, 

the defendant “reeks of bad faith” as the defendant immediately objected to jurisdiction in 

Missouri. Plaintiffs also argue that the defendant failed to establish that New York is an 

inappropriate forum because defendant has its principal place of business in New York, and the 

witnesses to the products’ design and marketing would be found in New York. Plaintiffs argue that 

New York has more than “minimal connections” to this case. Plaintiffs acquiesce that the 

defendant’s products were mostly used in Missouri, however, plaintiffs argue that defendant 

cannot satisfy the ”heavy burden of showing that plaintiffs’ selection of New York, defendant’s 

home forum, is not in the interest of substantial justice under CPLR §327. 

As to the defendant’s choice of law argument, the plaintiffs argue that this Court would not 

be unduly burdened in applying either Missouri or Kansas substantive law because “New York 

Courts are capable of interpreting and applying the law of other states, and even foreign countries.” 

See, Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Honeywell, Intl., Inc., 48 A.D.3d 225, 226 (1st Dep’t 2008). In 

the alternative, plaintiffs argue that this action should be stayed on the condition that the defendant 

stipulates to not contest jurisdiction, venue, or timeliness. 

Here, this Court finds that in the interest of substantial justice, the instant action should be 

heard in another forum, that is not New York. There is no dispute the plaintiffs filed two 

substantially similar actions in New York and in the Circuit Court of Cass County, Missouri. 

Although the defendant, a New York corporation, manufactures the GPS device and application 

to customers throughout the country, it seems quite clear that Missouri or Kansas would have a 

greater interest in determining negligence, strict products liability, and negligent infliction of 

emotional distress purportedly caused by the defendant. Furthermore, this Court finds that there 

would be substantial hardship on the potential key witnesses given that the decedents’ murders

occurred in Kansas, the use of the GPS device system and application occurred in Missouri and 

Kansas, and the law enforcement officers who investigated the underlying incident are located in 

Missouri and Kansas. In light of the foregoing, this Court finds that the balance of the 

considerations of justice, fairness, and convenience clearly favors dismissal of this action, and 

thus, the Court within its discretion, grants the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, on the 

ground of forum non conveniens. As to the plaintiff’s application, seeking that this action should 

be stayed on the condition that the defendant stipulates to not contest jurisdiction, venue, or 

timeliness is denied, as there is nothing stopping plaintiff from commencing an action in the 

appropriate forum while this case was pending before the court. 

Accordingly, defendant’s motion, seeking in the alternative, to dismiss the plaintiffs’ 

negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims is moot.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED the defendant, HAPN Holdings’ motion for an Order dismissing the plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, pursuant to CPLR §327(a), for forum non conveniens is GRANTED; and it is further

INDEX NO. 155908/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/15/2024

3 of 4 [* 3]
155908/2023 WILLIAMSON, MELANIE ET AL vs. HAPN HOLDINGS, INC.

Motion No. 002

Page 4 of 4

ORDERED that the portion of defendant’s motion for an Order seeking, in the alternative, 

to dismiss the plaintiffs’ negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims is denied 

as moot; and it is further 

ORDERED that any requested relief sought not expressly addressed herein has 

nonetheless been considered and hereby denied. 

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. 

5/15/2024

DATE LISA S. HEADLEY, J.S.C.

CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

INDEX NO. 155908/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/15/2024

4 of 4 [* 4]