![]() ![]() For a corporate defendant, general jurisdiction exists only where a defendant is headquartered, incorporated (if different), or, in rare 3 circumstances, otherwise “essentially at home” in the forum state through its continuous and systematic contacts with that state. The Supreme Court has recognized two types of personal jurisdiction: (1) general jurisdiction (sometimes call “all-purpose”) and (2) specific jurisdiction based on establishing a nexus between a defendant’s activity-in or aimed at the state-and the claimed harm. “Because the limits of Maryland’s statutory authorization for the exercise of personal jurisdiction are coterminous with the limits of the Due Process Clause, the statutory inquiry necessarily merges with the constitutional inquiry, and the two inquiries essentially become one.” Stover v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 396 (4th Cir. ![]() Maryland courts have consistently held that the state's long-arm statute is coextensive with the limits of personal jurisdiction set by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. ANALYSIS “A federal court sitting in diversity has personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant if: (1) an applicable long arm statute confers jurisdiction and (2) the assertion of that jurisdiction is consistent with constitutional due process.” Nichols v. ![]() However, a court “need not ‘credit conclusory allegations’” in determining whether a plaintiff has met his burden of making a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. Because the Court finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction, it does not reach Defendants’ other arguments. 2d at 811 (quotation marks omitted) (quoting 1 Defendants have also argued in the alternative that venue is inappropriate and that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by limitations. Nonetheless, the Court must “construe all relevant pleading allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, assume credibility, and draw the most favorable inferences for the existence of jurisdiction.” Cleaning Auth., Inc., 739 F. In determining whether a plaintiff meets this burden, unlike motions made under Rule 12(b)(6), the scope of this Court’s review is not limited to the pleadings, and the Court may appropriately consider affidavits submitted by the parties. In such analysis, the Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the Court has jurisdiction over each defendant. The requirement of making such a prima facie showing “resembles the plausibility inquiry governing motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).” Id. i-TV Digitalis Tavkozlesi zrt., 935 F.3d 211, 226 (4th Cir. STANDARD OF REVIEW In analyzing a motion to dismiss made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), the Court must determine whether the Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of jurisdiction. As set forth more fully below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. ![]() The Court finds that no hearing is necessary. 33) to which Defendants have replied (ECF No. Plaintiff has filed an Opposition (ECF No. Defendants have moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. Rather, the Hard Rock Hotel Punta Cana is owned by a Dominican entity pursuant to a licensing agreement with a foreign subsidiary of non-defendant Hard Rock Limited. Neither Hard Rock STP nor Hard Rock USA owns or operates the Hard Rock Hotel Punta Cana where the accident that is the basis for this suit took place. Hard Rock USA is both incorporated and maintains its principal place of business in Florida. Hard Rock STP is incorporated in New York and maintains its principal place of business in Florida. (“Hard Rock STP”), and Hard Rock Café International (USA), Inc. Based on injuries that she allegedly sustained in that accident, Plaintiff has brought the present negligence lawsuit against Defendants, Hard Rock Café International (STP), Inc. Plaintiff alleges that while there, she was in a golfcart-type vehicle being operated by a hotel employee, that the employee operated the vehicle in a negligent manner, and that Plaintiff was consequently ejected from that vehicle. On October 20, 2018, Plaintiff Tasha Kelly (“Plaintiff”) was a guest at the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino located in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic (“Hard Rock Hotel Punta Cana” or “Hotel”). BACKGROUND This is a personal injury case before the Court based on diversity jurisdiction after timely removal by Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM OPINION I. et al, * Civil Case No: 1:22-cv-00111-JMC * Defendants. * HARD ROCK CAFÉ INTERNATIONAL (STP), INC. 37 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND TASHA KELLY, * Plaintiff, * v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |