United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
VENICE DEGREGORIO, et al. Plaintiffs
v.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al. Defendants
MEMORANDUM OPINION
NITZA
I. QUIÑONES ALEJANDRO, J.
INTRODUCTION
Before
this Court is a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non
conveniens filed, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(2), by Defendants
Marriott International, Inc. (“Defendant
Marriott”) and JW Marriott Los Cabos Beach Resort &
Spa, [1] [ECF 4], and the response in opposition
thereto filed by Plaintiffs Venice DeGregorio and Nicholas
DeGregorio (“Plaintiffs”). [ECF 5]. In their
motion, Defendants primarily argue that this Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over them because Defendants are not
“at home” in Pennsylvania, as required by the
seminal Supreme Court decision, Daimler AG v.
Bauman, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014), and because
Plaintiffs' negligence claims do not arise out of any
contacts Defendants have with Pennsylvania.
The
issues presented in the motion have been fully briefed and
are ripe for disposition.[2]After careful consideration, for the
reasons set forth herein, Defendants' motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted.
BACKGROUND[3]
The
following is a salient summary of the facts relevant to the
issue of whether this Court has personal jurisdiction over
Defendants. Based upon these facts, this Court concludes it
lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants.
Plaintiffs
are husband and wife, and residents of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. On April 9, 2016, while registered guests at
the JW Marriott Los Cabos Beach Resort & Spa, in San Jose
del Cabo Mexico (the “JW Hotel”), Plaintiff
Venice DeGregorio slipped and fell on a slippery tiled
incline next to the hotel pool, causing her to suffer various
injuries to her wrist, shoulder, and forearm. Plaintiffs
allege that Mrs. DeGregorio's injuries were caused by or
resulted from Defendants' negligence.[4]
In
their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Marriott is
a business entity organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Maryland, with a principal place of business
located in Maryland. Plaintiffs further allege that the JW
Hotel is a business entity organized and existing under the
laws of Mexico, with a principal place of business located in
Mexico.
In
support of their motion to dismiss, Defendants attached the
declaration of Andrew Wright, Esquire, Vice President and
Senior Counsel of Defendant Marriott, to provide and correct
various jurisdictional facts. In the declaration, Mr. Wright
attests that Defendant Marriott is actually incorporated in
Delaware, rather than in Maryland as alleged by Plaintiffs,
and confirms that Defendant Marriott's principal place of
business is located in Maryland. Mr. Wright also attests that
Defendant Marriott never owned, controlled or operated the JW
Hotel. Defendants also attached the declaration of Rafael
Herrero, an attorney for Operadora Punta Peninsula, S.A. de
C.V. (“OPP”) and Operadora Misión San
Jose, S.A. de C.V. (“OMSJ”), two separate
business entities incorporated in and maintaining their
principal places of business in Mexico. According to Mr.
Herrero, the JW Hotel, where Plaintiffs vacationed and have
incorrectly named as a defendant in this lawsuit, is owned by
OPP and is operated by OMSJ.
In
their response to Defendants' motion to dismiss,
Plaintiffs do not offer any rebuttal to the jurisdictional
facts set forth in the sworn declarations above-referenced.
Plaintiffs merely point to the hundreds of hotels within the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania purportedly owned and
operated by Defendant Marriott and advertised on Defendant
Marriott's website, as sufficient minimum contact to
support personal jurisdiction in this matter.[5]
LEGAL
STANDARD[6]
Pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(2), a defendant may move to dismiss a claim for
lack of personal jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). Once a
defendant has raised this jurisdictional defense, the burden
shifts to the plaintiff to present a prima facie
case establishing jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant
in the forum. Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292
F.3d 361, 368 (3d Cir. 2002); see also Miller Yacht
Sales, Inc., v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93, 97 (3d Cir. 2004)
(“[W]hen the court does not hold an evidentiary hearing
on the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff need only establish a
prima facie case of personal jurisdiction.”).
A plaintiff has the burden to show, “with reasonable
particularity, ” enough contact between the defendant
and the forum to support the exercise of personal
jurisdiction by the forum state. Mellon Bank v.
Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1223 (3d Cir. 1992) (internal
citations omitted); see also Action Mfg. Co. v. Simon
Wrecking Co., 375 F.Supp.2d 411, 418 (E.D. Pa. 2005)
(“In order to establish a prima facie case,
the plaintiff must present specific facts that would allow
the court to exercise jurisdiction over the
defendant.”).
In
determining the existence of personal jurisdiction, courts
“must accept all of the plaintiff's allegations as
true and construe disputed facts in favor of the
plaintiff.” Pinker, 292 F.3d at 368. Once the
plaintiff's “allegations are contradicted by an
opposing affidavit . . . [he or she] must present similar
evidence in support of personal jurisdiction.” In
re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig., 602
F.Supp.2d 538, 556 (M.D. Pa. 2009). To counter opposing
affidavits, “[p]laintiffs may not repose upon their
pleadings in this manner. Rather, they must counter
defendant['s] affidavits with contrary evidence in
support of purposeful availment jurisdiction.”
Id. at 559. To that end, “[t]he plaintiff must
respond to the defendant's motion with ‘actual
proofs;' ‘affidavits which parrot and do no more
than restate [the] plaintiff's allegations . . . do not
end the inquiry.'” Lionti v. Dipna, Inc.,
2017 WL 2779576, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2017) (quoting
Time Share Vacation Club v. Atl. Resorts, Ltd., 735
F.2d 61, 66, n.9 (3d Cir. 1984)); see also Lehigh Gas
Wholesale, LLC v. LAP Petro., LLC, 2015 WL 1312213, at
*2 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 23, 2015) (“Plaintiff carries the
...