Cannella v. InterContinental Hotels Group, PLC

Background

Nicholas and Jennifer Cannella, identified as New York residents, brought tort claims against InterContinental Hotels Group, PLC; Six Continents Holdings, LTD.; Six Continents International Holdings, B.V.; H.I.M. Aruba B.V.; and Holiday Inn Mexicana, SA. The claims concerned an injury Nicholas Cannella suffered in 2018 while he and his wife were guests at the Holiday Inn Aruba. Jennifer Cannella had made the reservation through Travelocity, but the opinion states that the available materials did not show where she was when she made the reservation.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Holiday Inn Mexicana and Six Continents International Holdings, B.V. had not been served or appeared and did not join the motion. The court stated that the reasoning applied equally to all defendants and that it would dismiss the entire case for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Personal Jurisdiction

To survive a motion under Rule 12(b)(2), the plaintiffs had to make a prima facie showing—meaning enough factual support, accepted at this stage, to establish that the court could exercise authority over each defendant. The court held that the complaint did not meet that requirement. It used the same boilerplate allegations for every defendant, asserting generally that each defendant did business, advertised, solicited business, accepted reservations, or operated a reservation system in New York. The court found those conclusory statements insufficient.

The court explained that New York law permits general jurisdiction over a company that is essentially at home in New York and specific jurisdiction when the claim arises from certain New York-related conduct or other conduct covered by New York’s long-arm statute. The plaintiffs argued only specific jurisdiction in their opposition, so the court treated any general-jurisdiction argument as forfeited. The court also found that the plaintiffs had offered no facts suggesting that this was the rare case in which a foreign company was essentially at home in New York.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ specific-jurisdiction theories. Under New York law, the plaintiffs’ claims did not arise from the booking of the hotel room, and the plaintiffs had not shown that the booking occurred in New York. The Travelocity confirmation and the plaintiffs’ affidavits did not identify Jennifer Cannella’s location when she made the reservation. The court also found that the IHG press release did not mention New York or show that any defendant regularly conducted or solicited business there. Using an online booking platform accessible from anywhere was not equivalent to employing a local New York booking agent.

Other Requests and Disposition

The court held that the defendants could seek dismissal before discovery because the complaint itself failed to make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction. It denied the plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery, explaining that they had not formally requested it and had not identified evidence outside the pleadings that would justify such discovery.

Because the plaintiffs failed to show that New York’s long-arm statute authorized jurisdiction, the court did not reach whether exercising jurisdiction would satisfy constitutional due-process requirements. The court also declined to reach the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) arguments about whether the plaintiffs stated a claim. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the motion to dismiss, directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 21, and directed the Clerk to close the case.