Plaintiffs, Mexican nationals and former executives of Oro Negro, a Mexican oil-services company, raised funds from investors to purchase, operate, and lease drilling platforms to Mexico's state-owned oil drilling company. Following Oro Negro's bankruptcy filing in Mexico, defendants, as bondholders, exercised their contractual rights, changing management of Oro Negro's assets. Plaintiffs allege that these actions deprived them of their interests in Oro Negro. (NYSCEF No. 169 at 4-5.) Plaintiffs face multiple criminal charges in Mexico, and Mexican courts have repeatedly upheld the validity of those proceedings. (See NYSCEF Nos. 108-113.) Plaintiffs claim that defendants orchestrated these criminal investigations through bribery and collusion with Mexican authorities. (NYSCEF No. 169 at 16; 23-33.)

Plaintiffs sue Alterna Capital Partners LLC; AMA Capital Partners, LLC; Paul Matison Leand, Jr.; Contrarian Capital Management, LLC; and Maritime Finance Company Ltd. (MFC). [*2]Defendants now move to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint in its entirety for lack of personal jurisdiction in New York over Alterna, Contrarian, and MFC and on grounds of forum non conveniens, res judicata, failure to state a claim under New York law, failure to state a claim under Mexican law, and the act of state doctrine. (NYSCEF Nos. 98-103; 114-118.)

Defendants' motion is granted.

Defendants contend that this court lacks specific personal jurisdiction over Alterna, Contrarian, and MFC. Plaintiffs raise numerous arguments that this court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over those defendants. Plaintiffs allege that those defendants had agents in New York; committed tortious acts in New York; conspired in New York; transacted business in New York; and availed themselves of New York courts in the events giving rise to these claims. (NYSCEF No. 169 at 13-14.) They further allege that a substantial part of those events arose in New York.

A. CPLR 302 (a) (1)

Plaintiffs argue that specific personal jurisdiction attaches under CPLR 302 (a) (1). To exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nondomiciliary defendant, "(1) the defendant must have conducted sufficient activities to have transacted business in the state and (2) the claims must arise from those transactions." (Matter of New York Asbestos Litig., 212 AD3d 584, 586 [1st Dept 2023].) The latter requirement "requires the existence of an articulable nexus or substantial relationship between the forum transaction and the claim asserted." (Id.)

Plaintiffs allege merely that Alterna, Contrarian, and MFC conducted commercial activity in New York during the time they harmed plaintiffs. (NYSCEF No. 169 at 10-13.) Plaintiffs do not show how those defendants' New York business activity is substantially related to plaintiffs' claims. (Cf. D & R Glob. Selections, S.L. v Bodega Olegario Falcon Pineiro, 29 NY3d 292, 299 [2017] [holding that plaintiff's claim arose from defendant's business transactions in New York because the litigation centered on disputed commissions related to the parties' contract].)

B. CPLR 302 (a) (2)

Plaintiffs next argue that specific personal jurisdiction attaches under CPLR 302 (a) (2), claiming Alterna, Contrarian, and MFC committed torts in New York. Under CPLR 302 (a) (2), a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nondomiciliary who, in person or through an agent, commits a tortious act within the state.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired in New York to abuse the Mexican judicial system by seizing plaintiffs' assets, causing the filing of arrest warrants, and coordinating a negative mass-media campaign. (NYSCEF No. 169 at 1-3.) Plaintiffs also claim that defendants Alterna and Contrarian "conspired with AMA, and . . . Leand, . . . in meetings in New York" and [*3]that MFC met in New York "to discuss Oro Negro and other matters. . . ." (NYSCEF No. 99 at 10.) But there is no evidence to support plaintiffs' allegations of such conduct in New York. (See SOS Cap. v Recycling Paper Partners of PA, LLC, 220 AD3d 25, 35, 38 [1st Dept 2023] [collecting cases].)

Accordingly, this court lacks specific personal jurisdiction over defendants Alterna, Contrarian, and MFC.

The parties also dispute the burden of litigating in a New York forum. Under CPLR 327 (a), the court may dismiss an action if substantial justice requires the action be heard in another forum. Courts consider several factors including: plaintiffs' inability to file suit in another forum; the potential applicability of foreign law; the burden on New York courts; the hardship on defendants; the parties' residencies; the location of relevant witnesses and documents; and, as relevant here, whether the transaction from which the cause of action arose occurred primarily in a foreign jurisdiction.(See Fekah v Baker Hughes Inc., 176 AD3d 527, 528—529 [1st Dept 2019].)

Plaintiffs argue that this suit may not be brought in Mexico. Plaintiffs allege that bias in Mexican courts render that forum unavailable. (NYSCEF No. 99 at 15.) However, plaintiffs' "conclusory allegations are insufficient to support a finding of bias by a foreign court." (FIMBank P.L.C. v Woori Fin. Holdings Co., 104 AD3d 602, 603 [1st Dept 2013].) Mexican law also allows remote litigation, mitigating plaintiff's concerns about safety or arrest. (NYSCEF No. 99 at 14.) Mexican courts are better suited to review these proceedings; resolving the underlying dispute implicates Mexican law. Moreover, the ongoing litigation in Mexico creates the "risk that conflicting rulings might be issued by courts of two jurisdictions." (World Point Trading PTE, Ltd. v Credito Italiano, 225 AD2d 153, 161 [1st Dept 1996].)

As defendants note, litigation in New York would be burdensome. The remaining discovery pertains to plaintiffs' records and Mexican entities, which cannot be obtained in the United States, and nearly all witnesses are in Mexico. (NYSCEF No. 99 at 12-13.) Additionally, most parties reside outside New York and are incorporated or have their principal place of business elsewhere. (Id. at 15.) As such, the burden on this court to translate critical evidence and witness testimony, as well as the burden on witnesses to travel to New York, warrant dismissal of this action. (See Brandwein v Hartig, 219 AD3d 1212, 1213 [1st Dept 2023] [finding that litigation in New York would be burdensome because the relevant conduct occurred in Israel, most relevant documents were in Hebrew in Israel, and most witnesses resided in Israel]).

This case involves actions taken in Mexico by Mexican citizens and Mexican government officials for alleged breaches of Mexican law that are actively being litigated in Mexican courts. Plaintiffs' arguments notwithstanding, dismissal is proper.

The branch of defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' action on ground of forum non conveniens is granted. The court does not reach the other grounds for dismissal raised on defendants' motion.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint is granted; and the action is dismissed; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff serve a copy of this order with notice of its entry on defendant and on the office of the County Clerk (using the NYSCEF document type "Notice to the County Clerk - CPLR § 8019 (c)"), which shall enter judgment accordingly.