Luke v. Sunwing Travel Group

Background

Rezia Luke filed a diversity action against Sunwing Travel Group. She alleged that she injured her foot and toe at a Mexican resort owned by Sunwing, which the opinion describes as a Canadian company. Luke resides in Brooklyn, New York, and proceeded without a lawyer. The court had previously directed the parties to address whether the Southern District of New York was a proper venue and directed Luke to serve the order and complaint on Sunwing. Luke filed a statement; Sunwing did not respond, and the court stated that it was unclear whether Luke had served Sunwing.

Luke argued that Sunwing advertised flights and travel destinations, including Mexico, on the internet through a service provider called Flyfar. She said the advertising targeted New York residents and that Sunwing’s website led her to book a direct flight from New York to Cancun. She also argued that Sunwing frequently used LaGuardia and John F. Kennedy airports and therefore might have booking agents or representatives serving New York residents.

Why the Southern District was not a proper venue

Venue rules determine the federal district where a lawsuit may be heard. For a corporate defendant, venue may be proper where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction for the dispute. Personal jurisdiction means the court’s legal power over the defendant.

The court applied New York’s rules for general and specific personal jurisdiction. General jurisdiction may exist when a company conducts business in the district with substantial permanence and continuity. Specific jurisdiction may exist when the company transacts business in the state and the claim arises from that business.

The court concluded that Luke had not alleged facts supporting either type of jurisdiction in the Southern District. Her allegations about internet advertising, general targeting of New Yorkers, and possible airport representatives did not show that Sunwing conducted continuous and systematic business in that district. Specific jurisdiction was also lacking because the events underlying her claim occurred in Mexico. Even assuming that Luke booked the trip from her Brooklyn residence, the court stated that the claim arose from her injury in Mexico, not from the booking transaction.

The court therefore concluded that venue in the Southern District was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

Transfer to the Eastern District of New York

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal court may transfer a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice. The court may order such a transfer on its own initiative. Although the court found that Luke had not shown that the Southern District was a proper venue, it could not conclude that the Eastern District was improper.

The court determined that transfer was appropriate because Luke resides in Brooklyn, which is in the Eastern District, and she alleged that Sunwing targeted her to book a flight at a Queens airport, also in the Eastern District. The court found that Luke could arguably show that Sunwing was subject to personal jurisdiction there.

Disposition

The court ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, mail Luke a copy of the order, and note service on the docket. It directed that no summons issue from the Southern District and stated that the order closed that court’s case. The opinion did not reach the merits of Luke’s injury claim or Sunwing’s potential liability.