Z.A. v. Hyatt Corporation

Background

Z.A., an infant represented by his parents and natural guardians, and Carmit Archibald individually, sued Hyatt Corporation over injuries Z.A. allegedly suffered at the Park Hyatt St. Kitts Christophe Harbour Resort in St. Kitts and Nevis. The complaint alleges that Z.A. was struck in the head by an inadequately secured aquatic basketball hoop while swimming and playing aquatic basketball at the resort. It asserts that Hyatt is vicariously liable under various agency theories for the resort’s alleged failure to maintain safe premises and warn about dangerous conditions.

The complaint alleges that Hyatt operates the World of Hyatt website and loyalty program, advertises to New York consumers, is authorized to do business in New York, solicits business there, and earns substantial revenue from services provided there. Carmit Archibald allegedly found the resort on Hyatt’s website and reserved rooms from her home in Manhattan using loyalty-program points.

Hyatt’s Motion

Hyatt moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. Because the motion was filed before discovery, the court applied the same basic standard that would apply to a motion challenging personal jurisdiction: the plaintiffs had to make a preliminary showing, through sufficient factual allegations or evidence, that jurisdiction existed.

The plaintiffs principally relied on New York Civil Practice Law and Rules section 302(a)(3), which can allow specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant that commits a tort outside New York causing injury in New York, if additional statutory conditions are met. The plaintiffs also sought jurisdictional discovery concerning other possible bases for jurisdiction. In their opposition brief, they raised a possible claim under New York General Business Law section 349, but the court did not consider it because that claim was not pleaded in the complaint and a brief cannot amend a complaint.

Court’s Analysis

New York’s long-arm statute requires courts to determine whether general or specific jurisdiction exists and then consider whether exercising jurisdiction complies with constitutional due-process requirements. The plaintiffs’ section 302(a)(3) theory failed because New York courts generally locate an injury at the site of the original event that caused it. The complaint alleged that the event causing Z.A.’s injury occurred at the resort in St. Kitts and Nevis. Any later treatment in New York, or any worsening of the injury after the family returned, would not change the location of the original injury.

The court therefore concluded that the plaintiffs had not made the required preliminary showing of specific jurisdiction under section 302(a)(3). It also denied jurisdictional discovery because the plaintiffs had not identified a genuine dispute about a jurisdictional fact. The court did not address Hyatt’s alternative argument based on the doctrine allowing dismissal when another forum is substantially more appropriate.

Disposition

The court granted Hyatt’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs were granted permission to move for leave to file an amended complaint stating factual grounds for personal jurisdiction. They could file that motion within three weeks of the Memorandum Order, accompanied by a supporting legal memorandum and a marked-up proposed amended complaint. The court stated that failure to timely seek amendment, or failure to show that amendment would not be futile, would result in dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. The request for jurisdictional discovery was denied without prejudice to renewal in connection with factual allegations sufficient to make a preliminary showing of jurisdiction. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.