Lang v. Corporacion De Hoteles, S.A.
| Decision Date | 27 September 2007 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 06-1615 (JAG). |
| Citation | 522 F.Supp.2d 349 |
| Parties | Aixa Perez LANG; Diana Camila Lang; Sofia Lang, Plaintiff(s) v. CORPORACION DE HOTELES, S.A. d/b/a Hotel Casa De Campo, et al., Defendant(s). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Cherie K. Durand, Hector J. Quiñones-Inserni, Reynaldo Quiñones-Souss, Paul H. Hulsey, Hulsey Litigation Group, L.L.C., Charleston, SC, Manuel San Juan-De Martinó, Manuel San Juan Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiffs.
Frank La Fontaine, Francisco G. Bruno-Rovira, Raúl M. Arias-Marxuach, McConnell Valdés, Eduardo Castillo-Blanco, Iváan M. Fernández Law Office, San Juan, PR, PHV Joseph P. Klock, Jr., PHV Patrick O'Connor, Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendants.
Pending before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by defendants Premier World Marketing, Inc. and Premier Resorts & Hotels Group (together, the "Premier Defendants") (Docket No. 22), defendant MK Tours, Inc. (Docket No. 43) and defendant MK Tours (PR), Inc. (Docket No. 44). Also pending before the Court are a motion for entry of default against MK Tours, Inc., and MK Tours (PR), Inc. (Docket No. 33); and motions to strike MK Tours, Inc.'s and MK Tours. (PR), Inc.'s motions to dismiss (Docket Nos. 47, 48). All of these motions were referred to Magistrate-Judge Camille Velez Rive for Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate-Judge issued two separate Reports and Recommendations on August 24, 2007, one relating to the motion to dismiss filed by the Premier Defendants (Docket No. 71) and the other relating to the motions to dismiss filed by MK Tours, Inc. and MK Tours (PR), Inc. as well as plaintiffs' motions for entry of default and to strike (Docket No. 72). The Magistrate-Judge recommended that all the motions be denied. The Premier Defendants; MK Tours, Inc.; and MK Tours (PR), Inc. filed timely objections to their respective Report and Recommendation on September 10, 2007. Upon de novo review of those portions of the Reports and Recommendations to which the defendants object, the Court ADOPTS in part and REJECTS in part the Report and Recommendation on the Premier Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation on MK Tours, Inc.'s and MK Tours (PR), Inc.'s Motions to Dismiss.
On June 20, 2006, minors Diana Camila Lang and Sofia Lang and their mother Aixa Perez Lang ("Ms.Perez-Lang") (jointly, "plaintiffs") filed a complaint before this Court against the Premier Defendants; MK Tours, Inc.; MK Tours (PR) Inc.; and several other defendants, invoking the Court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Docket No. 1).
The complaint alleges that plaintiffs, along with Mr. Lang, father of the minor children and Mrs. Perez-Lang's then-husband, traveled to the Dominican Republic for a vacation at Casa de Campo resort after purchasing and booking their vacation package through MK Tours (PR), Inc., a travel agency in Puerto Rico. During their stay in the Dominican Republic, the family suffered an accident when their golf cart, which is claimed have been part of the vacation package deal, was struck by a truck in the premises of Casa de Campo resort. As a result of the accident, Mr. Lang died while plaintiff's were seriously injured. The surviving family members were thereafter transported to Puerto Rico to obtain medical treatment and undergo extensive surgeries. Sometime thereafter, and upon the need to continue with significant medical treatment, Ms. Perez-Lang and her minor daughters relocated to Virginia, were they could continue with treatment at Mt. Sinai Hospital and Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopedics in Baltimore, Maryland and rehabilitation at the Kennedy Krieger Children's Hospital in Baltimore. Plaintiff's currently reside in Virginia.
Plaintiff's claim that as a result of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of defendants, Mr. Lang died, eleven year-old Diana Camila suffered catastrophic physical and emotional injuries, Mrs. Perez-Lang suffered physical and emotional injuries, and fifteen year-old Sofia Lang suffered emotional injuries due to the loss of her father and the traumatic injuries to her sister and mother.
The Premier Defendants move to dismiss the complaint on several grounds. First, the Premier Defendants argue that the substantive law to be applied in this case is that of the Dominican Republic and under that law, plaintiffs' claims are time barred by a statute of limitations of six months. Second, the. Premier Defendants state that the complaint fails to establish minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them. Lastly, the Premier Defendants sustain that the complaint should be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds since the proper forum for plaintiffs' claims is the Dominican Republic.
MK Tours, Inc. moves to dismiss the complaint arguing that as a company with principal place of business in Florida, it should not be bound to defend itself in the district of Puerto Rico for a complaint filed under diversity jurisdiction in relation to an accident that took place in the Dominican Republic and in which it had no participation. MK Tours, Inc. challenges plaintiffs' assertion that they promoted and/or sold vacation packages through an agent (MK Tours (PR), Inc.) and submits that even assuming that the advertisement to sell vacation packages for Casa de Campo to Puerto Rican residents were placed by local travel agents, such conduct does not amount to the transaction of business in Puerto Rico that would submit them to the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, MK Tours, Inc. questions whether this federal court, under the Puerto Rico longarm statute, can exercise jurisdiction over it. In the alternative, MK Tours, Inc. moves the court to dismiss for improper venue, arguing that neither the plaintiffs reside in Puerto Rico nor do all the defendants reside in Puerto Rico. Finally, MK Tours, Inc. briefly states that the complaint should be dismissed under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon, which relief can be granted, arguing that there is no causal connection between the promotion, marketing and sale of the vacation package and plaintiffs' injuries.
MK Tours (PR), Inc., a Puerto Rico corporation, claims in its Motion to Dismiss that, since the accident which serves as basis for plaintiffs' claim occurred in the Dominican Republic, the complaint should be dismissed for improper venue. Furthermore MK Tours (PR), Inc. moves the Court to dismiss the complaint against it under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, arguing that there is no causal connection between the sale of the vacation package and the accident that occurred in the Dominican Republic.
A district court may, on its own motion, refer a pending matter to a United States Magistrate-Judge for a report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Rule 503, Local Rules, District of Puerto Rico. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Local Rule 510.2, the adversely affected party may contest the report and recommendation by filing written objections "[w]ithin ten days of being served" with a copy of the order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court must then make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980); Lopez v. Chater, 8 F.Supp.2d 152, 154 (D.P.R.1998). The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate-Judge's recommendations. "Failure to raise objections to the Report and Recommendation waives [that] party's right to review in the district court and those claims not preserved by such objections are precluded on appeal." Davet v. Maccarone, 973 F.2d 22, 30-31 (1st Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). The Premier Defendants, MK Tours, Inc., and MK Tours (PR), Inc. all filed timely objections and the Court will consider each in turn.
The Premier Defendants object to the Magistrate-Judge's recommendation that their motion to dismiss be denied. Specifically, they take objection to her conclusions that the Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the Premier Defendants and that a forum non conveniens dismissal is not appropriate because there is no basis for finding that the Dominican Republic is a more fitting forum for the cause.
(1) Forum non conveniens
The Premier Defendants first argue that the present action should be dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens. "The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a trial court, on a discretionary basis, to dismiss a case where, an alternative forum is available in another country that is fair to the parties and substantially more convenient for them or the courts." Nowak v. Tak How Investments, Ltd., 94 F.3d 708, 719 (1st Cir.1996). Several factors must be considered by a court when it is faced with a motion to dismiss on these grounds and it may dismiss "when an alternative forum has jurisdiction to hear the case, and when trial in the chosen forum would `establish ... oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant ... out of all proportion to plaintiffs convenience,' or when the `chosen forum [is] inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court's own administrative and legal problems.'" Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981)(citing Koster v. (American) Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 524, 67 S.Ct. 828, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947)).
The Premier Defendants sustain that the Dominican Republic is an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carreras v. Pmg Collins Llc
...state must be considerably more extensive than the minimum contacts necessary for specific jurisdiction.” Lang v. Corporacion De Hoteles, S.A., 522 F.Supp.2d 349, 359 (D.P.R.2007) (citing Donatelli v. Nat'l Hockey League, 893 F.2d 459, 463 (1st Cir.1990)). Thus, only the “continuous and sys......
-
Fox v. Palmas Del Mar Properties, Inc., Civil No. 07-2238 (DRD).
...amended complaint are assumed true and set forth below in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. Pérez Lang v. Corp. De Hoteles, S.A., 522 F.Supp.2d 349, 358 (D.P.R.2007). Plaintiff Cinda Fox owns several properties within Puerto Rico's Palmas del Mar residential complex, including a lot o......
-
Ocasio v. HOGAR GEOBEL INC., Civil No. 06-2041 (DRD).
..."Not all actions or omissions which result in injury will give rise to liability under Article 1802." Lang v. Corporacion De Hoteles, S.A., 522 F.Supp.2d 349, 365 (D.P.R.2007). "Negligence has been defined by the Puerto Rico courts as `the failure to exercise due diligence to avoid foreseea......
-
Hopkins v. Yi
...those actions can be said to be the legal, or proximate cause of the injuries suffered by plaintiff[]." Lang v. Corp. De Hoteles, S.A., 522 F. Supp. 2d 349, 362 (D.P.R. 2007) (citing Pizarro v. Hoteles Concorde Int'l, C.A., 907 F.2d 1256, 1259 (1st Cir. 1990)); see also Ticketmaster, 26 F.3......
-
Chapter § 1.03 TRAVEL ABROAD, SUE AT HOME
...in that state.")[143] Shute v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 863 F.2d 1437 (9th Cir. 1988). See also: Lang v. Corporacion De Hoteles, S.A., 522 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D.P.R. 2007); Sigros v. Walt Disney World Co., 2001 WL 28683 (D. Mass. 2001) (failure to deliver handicapped accessible accommodations; j......