Brown v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 14-CV-5960 (SLT) (MDG)
| Decision Date | 06 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | 14-CV-5960 (SLT) (MDG) |
| Parties | VERONICA BROWN, Plaintiff, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Defendant Marriott International, Inc. ("Defendant") has moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or, alternatively, on the grounds of forum non conveniens. (ECF No. 16, 43.) Defendant's motion seeking dismissal based on forum non conveniens is DENIED.
Defendant's motion seeking dismissal based on failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Second and Third Causes of Action. Plaintiff Veronica Brown ("Plaintiff") has withdrawn her First, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action (Pl. Memo. of Law in Opp. to Def. Mot. to Dismiss 1-2, ECF No. 46; Minute entry, Oct. 4, 2017). During oral argument on Defendant's motion on October 4, 2017, Plaintiff's counsel confirmed on the record that she has withdrawn these three claims. Thus, the Court will not rule on the portions of Defendant's motion arguing that these three Causes of Action fail to state a claim.
Plaintiff is granted leave to sufficiently plead the only claim that Plaintiff still seeks to pursue - vicarious liability based on the theory of apparent agency. Within 30 days of entry of this Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff is directed to file a Second Amended Complaint that sufficiently alleges her claim for vicarious liability based on the theory of apparent agency consistent with this Memorandum and Order.
Plaintiff alleges "[t]hat on or about the 18th day of July, 2013 at approximately 10:30 a.m.," while a paid guest at "a certain hotel and resort located on Frigate Bay Road in Frigate Bay, St. Kitt's, BWI known variously as the St. Kitts Marriott Resort and/or St. Kitt's Marriott Hotel[,] .... she was caused to slip and fall as a result of water dripping down from the air conditioner and air conditioner vent in the ceiling in the aforementioned 'hotel room,' causing the plaintiff to strike and come into violent contact with the floor, thereby causing her to sustain serious and permanent personal injuries." (Am. Ver. Compl. ¶¶ 16, 25, 27, ECF No. 16.) St. Kitts island and the neighboring island of Nevis are an independent "two-island country in the West Indies" called the "Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis ...."1 As a result of the July 18, 2013 incident, Plaintiff allegedly (Id. at ¶ 30.)
Plaintiff resides in Brooklyn, New York. (Pl. Memo. of Law in Opp. to Def. Mot. to Dismiss 15; Notice of Removal ¶ 9, ECF No. 1.) Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Maryland. (Notice of Removal ¶ 7.)
On October 10, 2014, this action was removed from the Supreme Court of New York State, Kings County to the Eastern District of New York. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant moved for removal based on diversity jurisdiction. (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 9.) Initially, Plaintiff had also sued the "St. Kitts Marriott Resort and the Royal Beach Casino." (ECF No. 1.) After removal, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in which she removed the St. Kitts entity as a defendant, leaving Marriott International, Inc. as the only defendant in this case.
In the Amended Verified Complaint, Plaintiff has defined the "St. Kitts Entities" to include the hotel where she stayed, the "St. Kitts Marriott Resort & the Royal Beach Casino" (the "Hotel"), and the "Royal St. Kitts Beach Resort, Ltd.; Marriott St. Kitts Beach Club; Royal St. Kitts Golf Club; [and the] Luxury Hotels International Management St. Kitts Ltd." (Id. at ¶ 2.) The First Cause of Action alleges that Defendant is the "parent" of the "St. Kitts Entities[,]" the "St. Kitts Entities" are the agents of Defendant, Defendant "through its servants, agents and/or employees breached, violated and disregarded their affirmative duty, by causing, suffering, permitting and allowing the 'hotel room' of said 'premises' to become, be and remain wet, slippery, unmated, unsafe, defective and hazardous, and to continue to remain" in that condition, "so that it constituted a nuisance, hazard and trap to the unwary, particularly plaintiff[,]" and thus, Defendant is liable for the Hotel's "negligence, carelessness and recklessness" that led to her accident and resulting injuries. (Id. at ¶¶ 1-29.) The Second Cause of Action alleges liability based on "Agency." (Id. at ¶¶ 33-9.) The Third Cause of Action allegesliability based on "Equitable Estoppel." (Id. at ¶¶ 40-4.) The Fourth Cause of Action alleges liability based on "Fraud[,]" and the Fifth Cause of Action alleges punitive damages. (Id. at ¶¶ 45-56.) Plaintiff seeks damages, punitive damages, and costs, in an amount to be determined at trial. (Am. Compl. at WHEREFORE clause.)
Fact discovery was scheduled to be completed by September 30, 2015. (Minute Entry Feb. 23, 2015.) But on September 18, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Marilyn Go granted Defendant's unopposed request to stay discovery pending resolution of Defendant's anticipated motion to dismiss. (Order.) Based on the docket entries in this case and the documents submitted in connection with the present motion, Plaintiff did make discovery requests to address Defendant's forums non conveniens argument. (ECF No. 21; Scheduling Order docketed on May 27, 2015; ECF Nos. 25 and 28; Minute Order for Motion Hearing docketed on June 22, 2015.)
On October 16, 2015, Defendant moved to dismiss the entire Amended Verified Complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or based on forum non conveniens.2 (ECF No. 44.) In opposing Defendant's motion, Plaintiff withdrew certain Causes of Action and narrowed her claim to just one - that Defendant is liable based on an "apparent agency" theory or "agency by estoppel[,]" and argued that she has sufficiently pled that claim. (Pl. Memo. of Law in Opp. to Def. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 46.) Plaintiff did not oppose Defendant's motion under Rule 12(b)(6) as it pertained to her First, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action; Plaintiff's opposition under Rule 12(b)(6) is limited to her Second and Third Causes of Action. (Id.) Plaintiff also argued that the Court should deny Defendant's motion seeking dismissal based on forum non conveniens. (Id.)
"The principle of forum non conveniens is simply that a court may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized by the letter of a general venue statute." Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 507 (1947), superseded by statute on other grounds. "[D]istrict courts enjoy broad discretion in" determining how to rule on a forum non conveniens motion. Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Industries, Inc., 416 F.3d 146, 153 (2d Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1175 (2006). The Second Circuit has "outlined a three-step process to guide the exercise of that discretion." Id. (citing Iragorri v. United Techs. Corp., 274 F.3d 65, 73 (2d Cir. 2001) (en banc)). Id. (citing Iragorri, 274 F.3d at 73-4). The Supreme Court ruling in Blanco, F. v. Banco Indus. De Venezuela, S.A., 997 F.2d 974, 981 (2d Cir. 1993).
R. Maganlal & Co. v. M.G. Chemical Co., 942 F.2d 164, 167 (2d Cir. 1991). Bohn v. Bartels, 620 F.Supp.2d 418, 427-28 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In ruling on a forum non conveniens motion, "a court considers not only the allegations of the pleadings but all the evidence before it, and does not presume the facts pleaded to be true." Ramirez de Arellano v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 448 F.Supp.2d 520, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (citation omitted). A district court's ruling on a forum non conveniens motion is reviewed for "abuse of discretion." Norex Petroleum Ltd., 416 F.3d at 153.
"Any review of a forum non conveniens motion starts with 'a strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff's choice of forum.'" Norex Petroleum Ltd., 416 F.3d at 154 (quoting Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255 (1981)). "[T]he presumption applies with less force when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial