Keane v. Hilton Rose Hall Resort & Spa et al

Filing 43

ORDER Granting In Part and Denying In Part 36 Motion for Reconsideration re 36 MOTION for Reconsideration re 35 Order on Motion for Discovery, Order on Motion to Stay, filed by Garfield Keane. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 9/14/2022. See attached document for full details. (nan)

Case 1:22-cv-21601-BB Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 22-cv-21601-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
GARFIELD KEANE,
Plaintiff,
v.
HILTON ROSE HALL RESORT & SPA,
HILTON RESORTS CORPORATION,
PLAYA HOTELS & RESORTS N.V.,
PLAYA MANAGEMENT USA, LLC,
RESORT ROOM SALES, LLC, and
PLAYA RESORTS MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Garfield Keane’s (“Plaintiff” or “Keane”)
Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order [D.E. 35] on Defendant’s Motion to Stay [D.E.
30] and Plaintiff’s Motion to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery [D.E. 33], ECF No. [36] (“Motion
for Reconsideration”). Defendants Hilton Rose Hall Resort & Spa, Hilton Resorts Corporation,
Playa Hotels & Resorts N.V., Playa Management USA, LLC, Resort Room Sales, LLC, and Playa
Management, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion for
Reconsideration, ECF No. [41], to which Plaintiff filed a Reply, ECF No. [42]. The Court has
carefully considered the Motion, all opposing and supporting submissions, the record in the case,
the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for
Reconsideration is granted in part and denied in part consistent with this Order.

Case 1:22-cv-21601-BB Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 2 of 8
Case No. 22-cv-21601-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this personal injury action against Defendants on May 24, 2022, ECF No.
[1] (“Complaint”). The Complaint asserts one count of negligence against Defendants. Id. ¶¶ 1924.
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [11], and a Motion to Stay, ECF No. [30].
Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion to Stay, ECF No.
[34]. Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Discovery for 120 Days and to
Stay Briefing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 11] Pending Limited Discovery and to
Establish Briefing Schedule, ECF No. [33] (“Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery”).
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery and
granted the Motion to Stay, ECF No. [35] (“Order”). The Court permitted Plaintiff to conduct
limited discovery pertaining to specific jurisdiction only in furtherance of whether the cause of
action arose from or meaningfully relates to Hilton Rose Hall Resort & Spa, Playa Hotels &
Resorts N.V., and Playa Resorts Management, LLC’s alleged business activities in Florida. See id.
at 2. The Court specified that Plaintiff may only inquire about the time period of three (3) years
prior to the incident, that Plaintiff may depose declarants in relation to specific jurisdictional
discovery, and that Plaintiff’s jurisdictional discovery must be completed by no later than
November 17, 2022. See id.
Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order, ECF No. [36]. Plaintiff argues
Plaintiff should be entitled to additional discovery regarding general personal jurisdiction and
forum non conveniens. See id. Defendants respond that additional discovery into general personal
jurisdiction and forum non conveniens would not reveal additional information for Plaintiff to
supplement his Complaint in good faith. See ECF No. [41]. Hilton Rose Hall Resort & Spa, Playa

2

Case 1:22-cv-21601-BB Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 3 of 8
Case No. 22-cv-21601-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
Hotels & Resorts N.V., and Playa Resorts Management, LLC’s principal places of business and
places of incorporation are not in Florida; thus, Plaintiff cannot plead general jurisdiction for those
Defendants. See id. at 2. With respect to forum non conveniens, Defendants argue that Plaintiff
does not need additional discovery. Plaintiff readily knows that the evidence and witnesses are
overwhelmingly located in Jamaica since this case concerns a slip-and-fall caused by liquid
stemming from a Jamaican hotel’s air conditioning in Jamaica. See id. at 3.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A motion for reconsideration is “an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.”
Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1370 (S.D. Fla. 2002). “The
burden is upon the movant to establish the extraordinary circumstances supporting
reconsideration.” Saint Croix Club of Naples, Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., No. 2:07-cv-00468-JLQ,
2009 WL 10670066, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 15, 2009) (citing Taylor Woodrow Constr. Corp. v.
Sarasota/Manatee Airport Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072, 1073 (M.D. Fla. 1993)).
A motion for reconsideration must do two things. First, it must demonstrate some
reason why the court should reconsider its prior decision. Second, it must set forth
facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior
decision. Courts have distilled three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1)
an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and
(3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.
Cover v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 148 F.R.D. 294, 295 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (citations omitted). “Such
problems rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare.” Burger King Corp.,
181 F. Supp. 2d at 1369.
Because court opinions “are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and
reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure,” a motion for reconsideration must clearly “set forth facts
or law of a strongly convincing nature to demonstrate to the Court the reason to reverse its prior
decision.” Am. Ass’n of People With Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1339, 1340 (M.D.

3

Case 1:22-cv-21601-BB Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 4 of 8
Case No. 22-cv-21601-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
Fla. 2003) (citations omitted). As such, a court will not reconsider its prior ruling without a
showing of “clear and obvious error where the ‘interests of justice’ demand correction.” Bhogaita
v. Altamonte Heights Condo. Ass’n, Inc., No. 6:11-cv-1637-Orl-31, 2013 WL 425827, at *1 (M.D.
Fla. Feb. 4, 2013) (quoting Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assoc., 763 F.2d 1237,
1239 (11th Cir. 1985)). “When issues have been carefully considered and decisions rendered, the
only reason which should commend reconsideration of that decision is a change in the factual or
legal underpinning upon which the decision was based.” Taylor Woodrow Constr. Corp., 814 F.
Supp. at 1072-73; see also Longcrier v. HL-A Co., 595 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1247 n.2 (S.D. Ala.
2008) (noting that reconsideration motions are to be used sparingly, and stating, “imagine how a
district court’s workload would multiply if it was obliged to rule twice on the same arguments by
the same party upon request”).
III. DISCUSSION
a. General Jurisdiction
Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to discovery regarding general personal jurisdiction and
the Court’s prior Order results in injustice by precluding Plaintiff from conducting general personal
jurisdictional discovery. See ECF No. [36] at 3-4. Defendants respond that the Court should not
permit general jurisdictional discovery because such discovery would not reveal information that
would allow Plaintiff to supplement his Complaint in good faith. See ECF No. [41] at 2 (citing
e.g., Nygård v. DiPaolo, 753 F. App’x 716, 721-22 (11th Cir. 2018) (requests for jurisdictional
discovery “‘should not serve as fishing expeditions,’ and are therefore only appropriate when a
party demonstrates that it can supplement its allegations through discovery”)). Defendants
emphasize that the principal places of business and places of incorporation for the relevant entity
Defendants are not in Florida. See id. Plaintiff replies that many of Defendants’ upper-level

4

Case 1:22-cv-21601-BB Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 5 of 8
Case No. 22-cv-21601-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
management identify as employees working in Florida, which suggest that Defendants have
continuous and systematic contact in Florida as to render them “at home” in Florida. ECF No. [42]
at 2-3.
Upon review, the Court is persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument. In general, courts have
general jurisdiction when the defendant is “at home” in the forum state such that the defendant
may be sued at the forum state for any claim arising anywhere in the world. Daimler AG v.
Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 138-39 (2014). For the Court to have general jurisdiction, the defendant’s
affiliations with the forum state must be so continuous and systemic as to render it essentially “at
home” in the forum state. Id. at 128. While a corporate defendant will satisfy this standard if it is
incorporated or has its principal place of business in the forum state, such factors are not the sole
bases for general jurisdiction. Id. at 137-39 (describing place of incorporation and principal place
of business as the “paradigm” bases for general jurisdiction but holding that the central inquiry is
whether the corporation’s affiliations with the forum state are so continuous and systematic as to
render the corporation essentially at home in the forum state.).
Plaintiff has provided information indicating that the relevant Defendants’ upper-level
management identify as employees working in Florida, which suggests that those Defendants may
have continuous and systematic contact in Florida as to render them “at home” in Florida. See ECF
No. [42] at 2-3. As such, Plaintiff may be able to supplement his allegations of general jurisdiction
in good faith after conducting discovery on the matter. Further, as Plaintiff correctly points out,
once jurisdictional facts are in dispute, the Court “does not have discretion to grant or deny” the
request for jurisdictional discovery. Eaton v. Dorchester Dev., Inc., 692 F.2d 727, 729 n.7 (11th
Cir. 1982). Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to conduct general jurisdictional discovery.

5

Case 1:22-cv-21601-BB Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 6 of 8
Case No. 22-cv-21601-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
To the extent that Defendants rely on Carlson v. Lewmar, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-23893COOKE/DAMIAN (SD. Fla. July 2022) (Altonaga, J.) ECF No. [35], and D-I Davit InternationalHische GMBH v. Carpio, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 5601 *4-5 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 17, 2022), the
Court is not persuaded. First, the court in Carlson did not explain its reasoning in its relatively
short order. Carlson, No. 1:21-cv-23893-COOKE/DAMIAN, ECF No. [35]. The hearing
transcript, provided by Defendants as an exhibit to their Response, also does not illuminate the
court’s reasoning for restricting jurisdictional discovery to specific jurisdiction alone. See ECF No.
[41-2] at 35. Second, in D-I Davit, the court held that there were insufficient allegations to establish
general jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. The case has no bearing on jurisdictional
discovery and does not meaningfully advance Defendants’ argument.
As such, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request on this matter.
b. Forum Non Conveniens
Plaintiff next argues that he is entitled to discovery regarding forum non conveniens. See
ECF No. [36] at 3. Defendants respond that it is unclear why Plaintiff would need any additional
discovery on this matter. See ECF No. [41] at 3. Defendants assert that this case is being brought
by a Pennsylvania Plaintiff who allegedly slipped-and-fell on liquid stemming from a Jamaican
hotel’s air conditioning in Jamaica and the evidence and witnesses are not located in Florida. See
id. Defendants also argue that because Plaintiff is already permitted to take limited jurisdictional
discovery, exhausting the specific jurisdiction inquiry will inform Plaintiff whether there are any
pertinent witnesses or evidence in Florida that relate to this case. See id. at 3, 9. Plaintiff fails to
meaningfully reply to Defendants’ arguments on the matter. See ECF No. [42].
Upon review, the Court agrees with Defendants. The Eleventh Circuit held in Aviation One
of Fla., Inc. v. Airborne Ins. Consultants (PTY), Ltd., 722 F. App’x 870, 886-87 (11th Cir. 2018),

6

Case 1:22-cv-21601-BB Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 7 of 8
Case No. 22-cv-21601-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
that discovery is generally not necessary when addressing forum non conveniens. In this case, it is
unclear whether additional discovery into forum non conveniens would yield any relevant
information. The scope of discovery already permitted will provide the necessary information to
argue against the forum non conveniens challenge, if necessary. This is consistent with Piper
Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 258 (1981), where the Supreme Court held that “[r]equiring
extensive investigation would defeat the purpose of [a forum non conveniens] motion.” See also
Vesuna v. CSCS Int’l N.V., 405 F. App’x. 371, 373 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that the plaintiff had
no right to discovery on forum non conveniens, prior to dismissal on forum non conveniens
grounds).
The Court, therefore, denies Plaintiff’s request to conduct additional discovery on forum
non conveniens.
c. Motion to Stay
The parties do not meaningfully dispute the Court’s Order staying the case. To the extent
that it must, the Court exercises its inherent power to manage the case docket in an efficient manner
and maintains the stay of deadlines in the Court’s Scheduling Order as outlined in its prior Order.
See ECF No. [35].
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. [36], is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART.
2. The Court’s prior Order, ECF No. [35], is AMENDED to permit Plaintiff to
conduct general jurisdictional discovery, in addition to specific jurisdictional
discovery, in the manner prescribed in the Court’s prior Order.

7

Case 1:22-cv-21601-BB Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 8 of 8
Case No. 22-cv-21601-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied in all other respects.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on September 14, 2022.

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

8