DAYS INNS WORLDWIDE, INC. v. MILLER
Filing
22
OPINION fld. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 11/19/14. (sr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
DAYS INNS WORLDWIDE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.: 13-03276 (CCC)
OPINION
v.
GREG MILLER,
Defendant.
CECCHI, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion of Defendant Greg Miller
("Defendant") to Dismiss the Complaint of Plaintiff Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. ("Plaintiff').
Pursuant to
FED.
R. Crv. P. 78, no oral argument was heard. Based on the following and for the
reasons expressed therein, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted.
I.
BACKGROUND 1
Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Parsippany, New
On April 11, 1
state courts
cases
arising out of the License Agreement. Additionally, the parties contemporaneously executed an
Addendum to the License Agreement (the "Addendum"), also dated April 11, 1997. Paragraph
two of the Addendum states the following: "Any provision in the License Agreement which
designates jurisdiction or venue, or requires [Defendant] to agree to jurisdiction or venue, in a
forum outside of South Dakota, is deleted from any License Agreement issued in the state of South
Dakota."
Plaintiff states that, beginning in 2012, Defendant repeatedly failed to meet his financial
obligations to Plaintiff under the License Agreement. Plaintiff filed a four count Complaint against
Defendant on May 23, 2013 (ECF No. 1). Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on July
16, 2013 for 1) lack of personal jurisdiction, 2) improper venue, and, alternatively, 3) a Motion to
Transfer Venue. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on August 5, 2013 (ECF No. 9).
Defendant filed a Reply on August 12, 2013 (ECF No. 11).
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a court must assume the
allegations of the complaint are true. See Dayhoff Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 86 F.3d 1287, 1302 (3d
Cir. 1996); Carteret Savs. Bank & Shushan, 954 F.2d 141, 142, N.1 (3d Cir. 1992); Wright v.
Xerox Corp., 882 F. Supp. 399, 403 (D.N.J. 1995). To assert personal jurisdiction over a
nonresident defendant, the plaintiff has the burden to establish the defendant had sufficient
"''""''"""" contacts
state
the
not
a
"'"r 1 u 11" " ' "
within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections
462,
its
357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958)). In other words, the defendant must have engaged in some purposeful
conduct within the forum "such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there."
See World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). To demonstrate such
conduct, "the plaintiff must establish either that the particular cause of action sued upon arose from
the defendant's activities within the forum state ('specific jurisdiction') or that the defendant has
'continuous and systematic' contact with forum state(' general jurisdiction'). Provident Nat'l Bank
v. California Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 819 F.2d 434, 437 (3d Cir. 1987) (quoting Helicopteros
Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-416 (1984)).
III.
DISCUSSION
Defendant argues that the Addendum effectively deleted the forum selection clause found
in paragraph 17.4 of the License Agreement. Absent the forum selection clause, Defendant asserts
that he has neither consented to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey nor does he have the requisite
minimum contacts with New Jersey necessary to sustain personal jurisdiction. Alternatively,
Defendant argues that venue is improper.
A.
Validity of the Forum Selection Clause
Under New Jersey law, words in a contract "must be given their ordinary meaning."
Assisted Living Assoc.'s of Moorestown. L.L.P. v. Moorestown Twp., 31 F. Supp. 2d 389, 398
terms ... are
l
is no room
courts must
the License
forum selection clause
u""'"iu~)"
the Addendum is inapplicable to
does not prohibit [D]efendant from filing suit
3
South
Dakota, but only expresses his agreement to waive objection to jurisdiction and venue in New
Jersey" (Pl.'s Opp'n at 10). However, the Addendum clearly states that any provision in the
License Agreement that "requires [Defendant] to agree to jurisdiction or venue, in a forum outside
of South Dakota, is deleted." The Addendum is thus clearly applicable to a forum selection clause
that requires Defendant to consent to jurisdiction in New Jersey. Therefore, this Court must instead
determine whether personal jurisdiction independently exists over Defendant.
B.
Minimum Contacts
Plaintiff does not appear to allege or argue that this Court has general jurisdiction over
Defendant. Thus, this Court will only address whether personal jurisdiction over Defendant is
proper by way of specific jurisdiction. A court has specific jurisdiction over a defendant when the
defendant has "minimum contacts with the forum state and if asserting jurisdiction based on those
contacts comports with 'fair play and substantial justice." Ameripay, LLC v. Ameripay Payroll,
Ltd., 334 F. Supp. 2d 629, 632 (D.N.J. 2004) (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310,
316 (1945)). Furthermore, the action must be related to these minimum contacts. Id. at 633.
Plaintiff asserts that this Court has specific jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant
has "purposely availed himself of the benefits of this forum by doing business with [Plaintiff],
which he knew was located in New Jersey, and by agreeing to continuing obligations under ...
(PL's
Inc., 983
551,
at 11 ).
(3d Cir. 1993); see
05-678,
4
2005 WL 3077902, at *5 (D.N.J. Nov. 15, 2005) ("A contract alone between a resident and a nonresident, does not automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts to exercise jurisdiction
over the non-resident."). A court "must also look to other factors such as 'prior negotiations and
contemplated consequences, along with the terms of the contract and the parties' actual course of
dealing."' Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP v. Carrascosa, No. 07-3216, 2010 WL 4609501 at *4
(D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2010) (quoting Grand Entm't Grp., Ltd. V. Star Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476,
482 (3d Cir. 1993)). Furthermore, "courts have recognized that various forms of communications
between the parties, including written correspondence and telephone calls, factor into the
minimum contacts analysis." Id. Here, the Complaint does not allege the existence of any of these
additional factors. The only mention of New Jersey in the Complaint pertains to Plaintiffs
principal place of business and the forum selection clause in the License Agreement, which was
deleted by the Addendum. The parties do not dispute that the business operations and property
governed by the License Agreement took place and were located solely in South Dakota. All of
the allegations in the Complaint relate to the License Agreement, thus Plaintiff has not shown that
this Court has the authority to assert personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
Accordingly,
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted.
IV.
CONCLUSION
the tor·egicimg reasons,
R. CIV. P.
granted.
are denied
DATED: November 1
CLAIRE C. CECCHI, U.S.D.J.
5
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?