## Facts

- A Wesleyan University student filed a putative class action alleging that multiple private colleges and universities conspired to fix or inflate tuition and financial-aid pricing in violation of Sherman Act § 1.
- The complaint sought damages on the theory that students paid higher tuition than would exist in a competitive market.
- Three defendants—Wesleyan University, Williams College, and Dartmouth College—moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, or alternatively to transfer to another district.
- The moving defendants’ New York contacts included recurring recruitment activities (including visits to New York high schools) and other ongoing institutional activities tied to the state.
- As to Dartmouth, asserted contacts included no local office or phone listing in New York but numerous recruitment visits and significant New York business activities, including financial dealings and real estate ownership.

## Issues

1. Whether the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Wesleyan, Williams, and Dartmouth under New York jurisdictional statutes and federal due process.
2. Whether venue in the Southern District of New York was proper for the antitrust claims under the applicable federal and antitrust venue provisions.
3. If jurisdiction or venue was lacking, whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 was warranted.

## Decision

- The court denied the Rule 12(b)(2) motions, holding it could exercise personal jurisdiction over the moving defendants.
- The court denied the Rule 12(b)(3) motions, holding venue in the Southern District of New York was proper.
- The court denied the alternative request to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406.

## Legal Principles

- A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state university when its forum-state contacts are sustained and purposeful and satisfy both the state jurisdictional statute and federal due process.
- Recruitment activities and recurring institutional ties to the forum, combined with other continuing business and financial dealings in the state, can constitute “transacting” or “doing” business sufficient for jurisdiction.
- In antitrust actions, venue may be proper where a defendant “transacts business” in the district; the same contacts supporting jurisdiction may also support venue.
- Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 is not appropriate where venue is proper and personal jurisdiction exists.

## Conclusion

The court kept the antitrust case in the Southern District of New York, concluding that the moving universities’ continuing recruitment and business-related activities in New York were sufficient to support personal jurisdiction and antitrust venue, eliminating any basis for dismissal or transfer at the pleading stage.


Kingsepp v. Wesleyan Univ., 763 F. Supp. 22 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)