Longbine et al v. PJ Corporation of Tennessee et al
Filing
47
ORDER denying 27 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 12/29/11. (klh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
THOMAS LONGBINE and
BRENDA LONGBINE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PJ CORPORATION of TENNESSEE,
VANTAGE HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.,
and NJ DAYA FAMILY, LLC.,
Defendants.
No. 10-0994-DRH
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
I. Introduction and Background
Now before the Court is defendant Vantage Hospitality Group, Inc.’s motion
for summary judgment (Doc. 27). Vantage contends that it is entitled to summary
judgment on Counts III and IV of the first amended complaint as it does not own,
operate or oversee any hotel operations nor were the co-defendants their agents
which would allow liability under a theory of vicarious liability. Plaintiffs oppose the
motion arguing that Vantage Hospitality Group, Inc. (“Vantage”) retains far more
control than their motion suggests (Doc. 34). Because the Court finds that there is
a dispute of material fact as to the control issue, the Court denies the motion.
On December 30, 2010, plaintiffs Thomas and Brenda Longbine filed a sixcount first amended complaint against defendants PJ Corporation of Tennessee (“PJ
Page 1 of 7
Corp.”) (Counts I and II), Vantage (Counts III and IV) and NJ Daya Family, LLC (“NJ
Daya”)(Counts V and VI) alleging negligence and loss of consortium. The first
amended complaint alleges that Thomas Longbine sustained hundreds of bed bug
bites and suffered severe injuries after staying at the America’s Best Value Inn located
in Carbondale, Illinois on July 17, 2010. Specifically, the first amended complaint
alleges that defendants, as owners and operators of the America’s Best Value Inn,
negligently and carelessly failed to provide guests with safe and sanitary rooms and
negligently and carelessly failed to take steps, including inspections, to keep its
premises clean and free of infestation, including bed bugs. Brenda Longbine brings
claims of loss of consortium as a result of Thomas’ bed bug bites.
II. Facts
Vantage provides certain services to hotels within its brands, such as
assistance with reservations and marketing.
America’s Best Value Inn.
One of Vantage’s brands is the
Defendants Vantage and PJ Corp entered into a
membership agreement for the America’s Best Value Inn located in Carbondale,
Illinois, effective May 10, 2010. The membership agreement entered between PJ
Corp. and Vantage provides in part the following:
“Member’s satisfaction and success as a Member depends substantially
on Member operating and maintaining the Property in accordance with
the Brand Programs; however, other than as set forth in this Agreement,
Member is free to operate Property pursuant to its independent best
practices business judgment.”
Further, it provides:
“13) PROGRAM COMPLIANCE: a. MEMBER APPROVED PROGRAMS:
Page 2 of 7
Member shall comply with all Member Approved Programs ...
Notwithstanding the above, the Brand is not established to, and does
not, substantially control the business operations, local property
marketing programs or business practices of Member and therefore
relies upon Member to understand its local market and
consumers/guests and to operate Property consistent with the
applicable best business practices in the transient guest business;”
It also states:
“Level of Service: A general reference to the degree to which a provider
of hotel services treats guests; Members shall provide guests with a high
Level of Service in order that the guest’s reasonable expectations shall
be met or exceeded and including that Member, as well as its
employees, agents, etc., shall conduct their hotel operations
professionally, ethically and considerately.
...
Quality Assurance Inspection: The process that includes a personal
visit by a SSAPD Director to the Property in order to perform an
inspection of the Property relative to Property Standards; pursuant to
this visit a Quality Assurance Report is generated, a Quality Assurance
Score is provided and, as necessary a PIP is prepared, reviewed and
established for the Property. While at the Property on such occasion,
the SSAP Director may also review Level of Service matters and will
endeavor to work with the Member and applicable staff on Brand
Programs.”
Quality Assurance Report: A written summary provided to the Member
that sets for the score achieved by a Property pursuant to the Quality
Assurance Inspection; the form of the Report is contained in the
Transition Guide
Qaulity Assurance Score: The cumulative grade/score (QA Score)
established for the Property pursuant to a Quality Assurance Inspection
and as recorded on the Quality Assurance Report; in the event that the
QA Score is less than an A (currently 485 to 500) a PIP will be
established for the Property.”1
1
Under the terms of the membership agreement a PIP is a Property Improvement Plan
which is a “written document setting forth the list of items that the Member shall perform to
improve the Property and/or Level of Service to acceptable Brand Standards including that
completion of the items is intended to raise/improve the Property and Level of Service to a point
Page 3 of 7
On October 5, 2010, Sandra Olsson, Director of Guest Relations Americas
Best Value Inn, by Vantage Hospitality Group, Inc. sent Neal Patel, the motel
operator, an email letter regarding the Longbine incident # 1739 (Doc. 37-3, p. 6).
The email letter indicated that they had received a complaint about the property and
informed Patel the steps that he was obligated to take in response to the complaint.
The steps included:
“1) Respond in writing in a courteous and professional manner (spelling
and grammar etc should be checked for errors)
2) Address the apology letter to the complaining guest
3) Send the apology letter directly to the guest
4)
Send
a
copy
of
t he
letter
via
email
to
guestrelations@vantagehospitality.com or via fax to 954.575.8274
5) Complete all the above mentioned steps within ten days of receiving
the complaint.”
Further, the email letter informed Patel that if the steps were not followed, “the
complaint will be sent to the Board Member for prompt resolution.” and that the
“property will be charged the amount of the refund as determined by the Board
Member, along with an administrative fee of $75.00.”
In response, Patel sent
Thomas Longbine an apology letter along with a complimentary one night stay offer
on December 14, 2010 (Doc. 37-3, p.8).2
that the Property earns a Quality Assurance Score in the “A” range. Member shall commence
performance of and shall complete the PIP items on a timely basis.”
2
That same day, Olsson sent Patel an email informing him that if he again failed to respond
to the guest complaint by December 16, 2010 that the guest complaint will be considered valid and
that the “Membership will have no other choice than to refund this guest the full amount. This
charge will be charged to your property along with a $75.00 administrative fee.” (Doc. 37-3, p. 5).
Page 4 of 7
III. Summary Judgment
Summary judgment should be granted where “the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party has
the responsibility of informing the Court of portions of the record or affidavits that
demonstrate the absence of a triable issue. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The moving party may meet its burden
of showing an absence of disputed material facts by demonstrating “that there is an
absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case.” Id. at 325, 106 S.Ct.
2548. Any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue for trial is resolved against
the moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct.
2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Cain v. Lane, 857 F.2d 1139, 1142 (7th Cir.1988).
If the moving party meets its burden, the non-moving party then has the
burden of presenting specific facts to show that there is a genuine issue of material
fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87, 106
S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) requires
the non-moving party to go beyond the pleadings and produce evidence of a genuine
issue for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Nevertheless, this Court
must “view the record and all inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to
the [non-moving party].” Holland v. Jefferson Nat. Life Ins. Co., 883 F.2d 1307,
1312 (7th Cir. 1989). Summary judgment will be denied where a reasonable jury
Page 5 of 7
could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Hedberg v. Indiana Bell
Tel. Co., 47 F.3d 928, 931 (7th Cir. 1995).
IV. Analysis
Vantage argues that it is entitled to summary judgment as it did not own or
operate the hotel nor were the co-defendants their agents. Vantage contends that the
evidence shows that the relationship between itself and PJ Corp. is one of only
membership. Vantage maintains that since the membership agreement gives no right
to control the manner and method of work of its members, there is no actual agency
relationship. Further, Vantage contends that there is no apparent agency as plaintiff
testified that he stayed at the hotel because of its convenient location not because of
its brand. Plaintiffs contend that under the agreement Vantage could interfere with
day-to-day operations, including accessing the motel’s reservation system and
directing the manner in which guest complaints are resolved. Plaintiffs also contend
that Vantage retains discretion to veto a claim of best business practices, and could
also suspend or default a motel at its convenience, including for violations contained
nowhere in the membership agreement. The Court agrees with plaintiffs.
“The test for agency is whether the alleged principal has the right to control the
manner and method in which work is carried out by the alleged agent and whether
the alleged agent can affect the legal relationships of the principal.” Anderson v. Boy
Scouts, 589 N.E.2d 892, 894 (Ill. App. 1992). While the existence of an agency
relationship is usually a question of fact, it becomes a question of law when the facts
Page 6 of 7
regarding the relationship are undisputed or no liability exists as a matter of law. Id.
“The burden of proving the existence of an agency relationship and the scope of
authority is on the party seeking to charged the alleged principal.” Id.
Here, the Court finds that there is a dispute of material fact as to the control
issue. Thus, the fact-finder will have to resolve the inferences suggested by the
member agreement and the email letter which tells the motel operator exactly what
he is to do following the receipt by defendant once it receives a customer complaint.
Clearly, the letter seems to be evidence of the control in the nature argued by
plaintiffs. Further, the ambiguities as outlined in the pertinent portions of the
member agreement supra do not resolve the control issue. Thus, Vantage is not
entitled to summary judgment.
V. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Vantage’s motion for summary judgment (Doc.
27).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 29th day of December, 2011.
David R. Herndon
2011.12.29
12:40:54 -06'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Page 7 of 7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?