Perrone v. Catamount Ski Resort, LLC

Background

Annie Perrone sued Catamount Ski Resort, LLC and Catamount Development Corporation, alleging negligence and gross negligence based on injuries she suffered while skiing at Catamount Ski Resort. According to the complaint, Perrone collided with an unmarked, unguarded, and unpadded snowmaking-machine pole on a ski trail. She alleged multiple pelvic and related fractures, continuing effects, pain and suffering, medical expenses, and lost time from school. She sought more than $1,000,000 in actual damages, punitive damages, costs, interest, and attorney’s fees.

The defendants moved to transfer the case from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a). The opinion states that the resort is on the border of Hillsdale, New York, in the Northern District, and South Egremont, Massachusetts, in the District of Massachusetts. The defendants’ offices were in Hillsdale, New York.

Venue analysis

Venue is the legally proper federal district for a case. The court considered whether venue was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), which concerns where defendants reside, and § 1391(b)(2), which concerns where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Under § 1391(b)(1), the court concluded that Perrone had not shown that either defendant resided in the Southern District. Neither defendant had a place of business there. The court also concluded that Perrone’s assertions that many resort patrons came from the Southern District did not establish the continuing business contacts needed for general personal jurisdiction there. The defendants’ prior litigation in New York state courts did not establish venue in this separate federal case.

The court further concluded that specific personal jurisdiction and venue were not established in the Southern District. Perrone did not allege that the relevant business transaction occurred there, that the accident occurred there, or that the defendants owned or possessed real property there. The court determined that the accident and the alleged failure to protect against it occurred at the resort, which was located in the Northern District and the District of Massachusetts. Perrone’s treatment by a physician and medical imaging in New York City did not change the venue analysis because those were activities involving Perrone, not the defendants’ acts or omissions giving rise to the claims.

The court therefore held that venue in the Southern District was improper under both § 1391(b)(1) and § 1391(b)(2), and that venue was proper in the Northern District.

Transfer and disposition

When venue is improper, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) permits a court to dismiss the case or, in the interest of justice, transfer it to a district where it could have been brought. The court chose transfer. It found that Perrone had pursued her claim diligently, that the defendants would not be prejudiced by transfer to the district where they resided, and that there were no allegations of bad faith.

The court granted the defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue and ordered the case transferred to the Northern District of New York. Because the court granted transfer under § 1406(a), it did not address the parties’ arguments for or against discretionary transfer under § 1404(a). The ruling addressed venue only; it did not decide the merits of Perrone’s negligence or gross-negligence claims. The Clerk was requested to terminate the pending motion and transfer the case forthwith.