Bell v. Imperial Palace Hotel/Casino, Inc.

• Decision Date: 25 October 2001
• Docket Number: No. 4:01-CV-0883 AGF.,4:01-CV-0883 AGF.
• Parties: Clarence BELL, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. IMPERIAL PALACE HOTEL/CASINO, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

200 F.Supp.2d 1082

Clarence BELL, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. IMPERIAL PALACE HOTEL/CASINO, INC., Defendant.

No. 4:01-CV-0883 AGF.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

October 25, 2001.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Donna M. Anderson, Anderson and Gehres, St. Louis, MO, for plaintiffs.

Daniel T. Rabbitt, Rabbitt and Pitzer, St. Louis, MO, for defendant.

ORDER

FLEISSIG, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs Clarence and Debra Bell, husband and wife, filed a personal injury suit against the Imperial Palace Hotel and Casino ("Imperial Palace"), alleging one count of negligence and one count of loss of consortium related to a fall that plaintiff Clarence Bell suffered while the plaintiffs were guests at the defendant's hotel located in Las Vegas, Nevada. Defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for lack of personal jurisdiction, claiming that there are not sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Missouri, and under Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficiency of process.¹ Plaintiffs oppose defendant's motions and request, in the alternative, that the Court transfer the case to a district in which it could have originally been brought.

Personal Jurisdiction

The facts relevant to the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction are not in dispute. The plaintiffs, Clarence and Debra Bell, are residents of Missouri. The defendant is a Nevada corporation, with its principal place of business in the State of Nevada. In June of 2000, both plaintiffs were guests at the Imperial Palace, a hotel and casino owned and operated by the defendant located in Las Vegas, Nevada. In the complaint, Plaintiff Clarence Bell alleges that he slipped and fell in a puddle of water on the hotel premises thereby sustaining injuries to his body, including his back and hip. Plaintiff Debra Bell asserts a claim for loss of consortium arising from the injuries allegedly sustained from the same incident.

The defendant has asserted, by way of an uncontroverted affidavit,² that it does not maintain any agents, offices, bank accounts, or telephone numbers in the State of Missouri. It does not own, use, or possess any real or tangible personal property in Missouri. Furthermore, it has not entered into any contracts to perform services or furnish materials and does not directly advertise or solicit business in this forum state.

Although the cause of action arose in Nevada, as grounds for personal jurisdiction in Missouri, plaintiffs allege that the defendant "solicited business in the State of Missouri," Complaint at ¶ 3. Plaintiffs base their allegations solely on the fact that the defendant maintains an internet website containing information regarding the Imperial Palace. Plaintiffs assert, and the defendant does not dispute, that the website offers information about the hotel and casino and allows visitors of the site to make online hotel reservations with the submission of credit card information. The site also advertises a toll-free number that may be used to make room reservations. The plaintiffs do not claim they used the website to make their hotel reservations; plaintiffs used a travel agent, who was not affiliated with the defendant, to obtain a room reservation at the Imperial Palace. Nor do plaintiffs suggest that they visited or used the website prior to their visit to defendant's hotel. Plaintiffs assert that the maintenance of this website constitutes the "transaction of business" in the State of Missouri, citing to the first subsection of Missouri's long-arm statute, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 506.500.1(1).³

The question before the Court, therefore, is whether the maintenance of an internet website that allows visitors to the site to make hotel room reservations alone constitutes sufficient contact with Missouri to subject the defendant to personal jurisdiction in this Court for an alleged tort that occurred in Nevada. The Court finds that it does not.

Discussion

Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits dismissal or transfer of a claim that is lacking personal jurisdiction. In a diversity action where personal jurisdiction is challenged, the Court must first determine if the state's long-arm statute is satisfied and, if so, must then determine if the exercise of that statute comports with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Digi-Tel Holdings, Inc. v. Proteq Telecomms., Ltd., 89 F.3d 519, 522 (8th Cir.1996); Bell Paper Box, Inc. v. U.S. Kids, Inc., 22 F.3d 816, 818 (8th Cir.1994). While Missouri's long-arm statute on its face purports to circumscribe the forum's jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant to a discrete list of enumerated circumstances, the Missouri Supreme Court has found that the purpose of the long-arm statute is to extend the jurisdiction of Missouri courts over out-of-state defendants to the full extent permitted by the Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Clune v. Alimak AB, 233 F.3d 538, 541 (8th Cir.2000). See also State ex rel. Newport v. Wiesman, 627 S.W.2d 874, 876 (Mo.1982); State ex rel. Deere and Co. v. Pinnell, 454 S.W.2d 889, 892 (Mo.1970). Therefore, the examination of whether Missouri's long-arm statute has been satisfied is coextensive with whether the assertion of person jurisdiction over the defendant meets the requirement of due process, and analysis is collapsed into the single question of whether asserting jurisdiction violates Due Process Clause. Clune, 233 F.3d at 541. See also Angelica Corp. v. Gallery Mfg. Corp., 904 F.Supp. 993, 996 (E.D.Mo.1995).

When personal jurisdiction is challenged, the burden rests with the plaintiff to show that the exercise of jurisdiction is appropriate. Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Maples Indus., Inc., 97 F.3d 1100, 1102 (8th Cir.1996). To defeat a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff need "only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over the defendant." Digi-Tel Holdings, 89 F.3d at 522. When the issue arises in the context of a motion to dismiss, the court must view the evidence in light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id.

To satisfy due process, a plaintiff must show that there are "minimum contacts" between the forum state and the defendant. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). Assuming there are "minimum contacts," the court must consider whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant is counter to the "traditional notion of fair play and substantial justice." Id. The underlying inquiry under the "minimum contacts" standard is whether "the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 287, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). "Actions by [the defendant] itself must have created a `substantial connection' with the forum." Bell Paper Box, Inc. v. Trans Western Polymers, Inc., 53 F.3d 920, 922 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957)).

Here, both parties correctly rely upon the five-factor test recited in Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Maples Indus., Inc., 97 F.3d 1100, 1102 (8th Cir.1996)⁴, which examines (1) the nature and quality of the contacts with the forum state; (2) the quantity of those contacts; (3) the relation of the cause of action to the contacts; (4) the interest of the forum state in providing a forum for its residents; and (5) the convenience of the parties. The first three factors are of primary importance. Id. There is no magic formula for assessing whether there are sufficient minimum contacts; the court must carefully examine the facts to assess the "nature of the contacts between the defendant and the forum state." Clune, 233 F.3d at 542.

The Supreme Court has recognized two categories of in personam jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction exists when the nonresident defendant has sufficient contact with the forum state and the cause of action arises out of or relates to that contact. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n. 8, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). General jurisdiction is applicable where the plaintiff's cause of action does not arise out and is not related to the defendant's contacts with the forum. Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 1868; Morris v. Barkbuster, Inc., 923 F.2d 1277, 1280-81 (8th Cir.1991). Following the Supreme Court's decision in Helicopteros, courts in the Eighth Circuit have recognized that the third factor of Burlington, the relationship of the cause of action to the contacts, distinguishes between specific and general jurisdiction. Burlington Industries, 97 F.3d at 1102; Bell v. U.S. Kids, 22 F.3d at 819.

While both specific and general jurisdiction must satisfy the requirements of Due Process, general jurisdiction requires a higher level of contacts with the forum state. Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 417, 104 S.Ct. 1868. General jurisdiction is applicable only where the nonresident defendant's contacts with the forum state are so "continuous and systematic" that the defendant may be subject to suit for causes of action that are unrelated to the forum contacts. Id. at 414 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 1868. Neither party in the present action has articulated which jurisdiction, general or specific, is applicable to the facts of this case.

A. Specific Jurisdiction

The necessary showing for specific jurisdiction is less than what is required for general jurisdiction. Where specific jurisdiction is asserted, due process is normally satisfied where the defendant purposely directed its activities at the forum, and the controversy arises out of or relates to that activity. Burlington, 97 F.3d at 1103; Wessels, Arnold & Henderson v. National Med. Waste, Inc., 65 F.3d 1427, 1432 n. 4 (8th Cir.1995); Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Nippon Carbide...