Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 04-2489
PAUL A. GARGANO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RONALD ZIMMER, CELITA ZIMMER,
and ZIMMER & ASSOCIATES,
Defendants-Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Howard, Circuit Judge,
and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge.
Scott McConchie with whom Griesinger Tighe & Maffei, LLP was
on brief for Defendants-Appellees.
Paul A. Gargano with whom Gargano & Associates and Timothy
Scannell were on brief for Appellant.
March 31, 2005
Per Curiam. This case arose from dealings that a Cayman
Islands construction firm had with a client, Paul Gargano, a
Massachusetts lawyer who is also a resident of the Cayman Islands
by grant of status, owns property there, and sought to build a home
there. The firm, Zimmer & Associates, is run by Celita and Ronald
Zimmer, both Caymanians by citizenship or grant of status. After
the business relationship broke down over payment issues, Gargano
filed suit in federal district court in Massachusetts, asserting
various contract, fraud, and unfair practices claims.
The magistrate judge recommended granting a motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(2), assessing in detail the multi-faceted "minimum
contacts" and "gestalt" factors and finding that both sets of
considerations worked against the plaintiff. See Burger King Corp.
v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-78 (1985); Ticketmaster-New York,
Inc. v. Alioto, 26 F.3d 201, 206-12 (1st Cir. 1994). The district
judge adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation,
dismissing the case.
If the plaintiff met the necessary showing of "minimum
contacts," and it is not at all clear that he did, he would have
done so at best by a small margin -- one that the "gestalt" factors
weighing against jurisdiction in this case easily overcome.
Accordingly, on this second ground, we readily affirm,
substantially for the reasons given by the magistrate judge.
It is so ordered.
-2-