Decker v. Circus Circus Hotel
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13863, 1999 WL 319056, 49 F.Supp.2d 743 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's national advertising, promotional mailings to past and potential customers, and the maintenance of an interactive commercial website with a forum selection clause do not constitute sufficient minimum contacts to establish general or specific personal jurisdiction in a forum state for a cause of action unrelated to those contacts.
Facts:
- Janice and Robert Decker are residents of New Jersey.
- Circus Circus Hotel is a Nevada corporation with its only place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada.
- The Deckers sustained personal injuries due to an alleged negligent condition on the premises of the Circus Circus Hotel in Las Vegas.
- Circus Circus Hotel aired a single television advertisement on a national cable network that was visible in the New Jersey area.
- The hotel advertised in national publications like USA Today and People Magazine, which are distributed in New Jersey.
- Circus Circus mailed promotional materials to former guests in New Jersey and to New Jersey residents who requested information.
- The hotel operated an interactive website where customers could make reservations, and this website contained a forum selection clause requiring disputes to be settled in Nevada state or federal courts.
Procedural Posture:
- Janice and Robert Decker filed a personal injury lawsuit against Circus Circus Hotel in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, a state court of first instance.
- Circus Circus Hotel removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
- The defendant, Circus Circus Hotel, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal district court in New Jersey have personal jurisdiction over a Nevada hotel whose only contacts with New Jersey consist of national advertising, promotional mailings, and an interactive website with a Nevada forum selection clause, for a personal injury claim that arose at the hotel in Nevada?
Opinions:
Majority - Walls, District Judge
No. The court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant hotel because its contacts with New Jersey are insufficient to satisfy constitutional due process standards. For general jurisdiction, the hotel's national advertising and informational mailings do not amount to the 'continuous and systematic contacts' required, as they were not specifically targeted at New Jersey. The actions of the hotel's parent or sister corporations in New Jersey are irrelevant without evidence to pierce the corporate veil. For specific jurisdiction, the plaintiffs' injury in Nevada did not arise from the hotel's contacts with New Jersey. Furthermore, while the hotel's interactive website could potentially create jurisdiction, the presence of a valid forum selection clause, enforceable under Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute, demonstrates the hotel did not purposefully avail itself of New Jersey's laws and could not reasonably anticipate being sued there.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the high bar for establishing general personal jurisdiction based on modern advertising and internet presence. It reinforces the principle that merely making a service available nationwide is not equivalent to purposefully availing oneself of the laws of every state where a consumer might reside. The case is significant for highlighting the power of a forum selection clause on a commercial website to defeat personal jurisdiction that might otherwise exist. This provides a clear roadmap for businesses to contractually limit their exposure to lawsuits in foreign forums, thereby controlling litigation costs and uncertainty.
