Greenwood v. Tides Inn, Inc.
504 F. Supp. 992, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15849 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant for a cause of action arising outside the forum state if the defendant's contacts with the forum, such as systematic and continuous solicitation of business, are 'fairly extensive' enough to satisfy the state's long-arm statute and the constitutional requirements of due process.
Facts:
- The Tides Inn, a hotel owned and operated by the defendant, is located in Irvington, Virginia.
- The Tides Inn mailed a newsletter, the 'Tides Times', two or three times a year to former guests, including 1,550 Maryland residents in 1980.
- The newsletter contained language soliciting business and encouraging readers to visit the hotel.
- The defendant also advertised in nationally distributed magazines and maintained a toll-free telephone number for reservations.
- Hundreds of Maryland residents had stayed at the Tides Inn in the years preceding the lawsuit.
- On or about November 11, 1978, the plaintiff wife, a Maryland resident, was a guest at the Tides Inn.
- While on the hotel premises in Virginia, the plaintiff wife slipped and fell on a walkway, sustaining personal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, a husband and wife who are citizens of Maryland, filed suit against Tides Inn, a Virginia corporation.
- The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs alleged negligence and breach of contract stemming from the wife's personal injuries.
- The defendant, Tides Inn, filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.
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 court in Maryland have personal jurisdiction over a Virginia hotel for a tortious injury that occurred in Virginia, when the hotel regularly solicits business from Maryland residents through direct mailings and national advertising, but the cause of action did not arise from those solicitations?
Opinions:
Majority - Kaufman, J.
Yes. A federal court in Maryland has personal jurisdiction over the Virginia hotel because the defendant's continuous and systematic solicitation of business in Maryland is sufficient to satisfy both the state's long-arm statute and the constitutional requirements of due process. The court reasoned that Maryland’s long-arm statute, § 6-103(b)(4), allows for jurisdiction over a defendant who causes an out-of-state tortious injury if that defendant 'regularly does or solicits business' or 'engages in any other persistent course of conduct' in Maryland. The defendant's mailing of thousands of newsletters directly to Maryland residents and its national advertising campaign constituted both regular solicitation and a persistent course of conduct. By purposefully availing itself of the privilege of conducting activities within Maryland, the defendant established 'fairly extensive' contacts sufficient to make the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice' under International Shoe, even though the plaintiff's injury did not arise out of those specific contacts.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the broad reach of modern long-arm statutes that are interpreted to extend jurisdiction to the limits of constitutional due process. It establishes that for causes of action not arising from a defendant's in-state activities (a basis for general personal jurisdiction), systematic and continuous solicitation aimed at a state's residents can be sufficient to constitute the necessary minimum contacts. This precedent is significant for businesses, particularly in the hospitality and e-commerce sectors, as it confirms that having no physical presence in a state is not a shield from litigation if the business actively and purposefully seeks customers there. The case reinforces the principle that a defendant who enjoys the economic benefits of a forum state's market must also accept the burden of defending a suit there.
