Tanibajeva v. Skytop Lodge Corp.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: KAROLINE MEHALCHICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Docket Number: Civil Action 3:23-CV-01846
• Decision Date: 03 September 2024
• Citation: Tanibajeva v. Skytop Lodge Corp., Civil Action 3:23-CV-01846 (M.D. Pa. Sep 03, 2024)
• Parties: RACHEL TANIBAJEVA, Plaintiff, v. SKYTOP LODGE CORP. et al., Defendant.
• topic: Contracts,Personal Injury Law,Civil Procedure,Product Liability Law

1

RACHEL TANIBAJEVA, Plaintiff, v. SKYTOP LODGE CORP. et al., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:23-CV-01846

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

September 3, 2024

MEMORANDUM

KAROLINE MEHALCHICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This action arises out of strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty claims filed by Rachel Tanibajeva (“Plaintiff”) on October 2, 2023, against Sky Top Lodge Corp. (‘Skytop”), Edelrid GmbH & Co. KG (“Edelrid GmbH”), Edelrid North America (“Edelrid NA”), Petzl America, Inc. (“Petzl”), Challenges Unlimited, Challenge Design Innovations, Inc. And High Country Hardware (“CDI”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and John Doe Corporation 1-10. (Doc. 1). Presently before the Court are seven motions to dismiss filed by CDI, Skytop Edelrid NA, Petzl, Challenges Unlimited, and Edelrid GmbH.^[1] (Doc. 24; Doc. 26; Doc. 28; Doc. 32; Doc 46; Doc. 70; Doc. 72). For the following reasons, Defendants' motions to dismiss will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (Doc. 24; Doc. 26; Doc. 28; Doc. 32; Doc. 46; Doc. 70; Doc. 72).

I. Background and Procedural History

The following background is taken from Plaintiff's amended complaint and is considered to be true for the purposes of the instant motion to dismiss. (Doc. 21). On October 24, 2021, Plaintiff visited Treetop Adventure Course and Zip Lines at Skytop Lodge in Sky Top in Pennsylvania as a business invitee. (Doc. 21, at 2). Skytop advertises its “Treetop Adventure Course” as follows:

For the thrill of speed and altitude, visit The Adventure Center at Skytop Lodge, the pinnacle of action and adventure in the Poconos. Treat yourself to a four-hour treetop adventure. See how exhilarating life can be 50 feet off the ground. With 14 different zip lines and over 40 different mid air elements, this is sure to be an experience to remember!”

(Doc. 21, ¶ 32).

During her visit, Plaintiff attempted to ride one of the ziplines at Skytop's adventure course. (Doc. 21, at 2). While Plaintiff was on the zipline, its components malfunctioned and failed, causing her to fall approximately 12 feet to the ground. (Doc. 21, ¶ 39). Plaintiff suffered numerous injuries, including a traumatic brain and spinal injuries, as a result of the fall. (Doc. 21, at 2). Seeking compensatory and punitive damages, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on October 2, 2023. (Doc. 1). The instant, operative complaint was subsequently filed against Defendants and John Doe Corporation 1-10 on November 27, 2023. (Doc. 21).

On December 1, 2023, CDI filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for more definite statement as well as a brief in support. (Doc. 24; Doc. 25). On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed an answer to statement of facts and a brief in opposition to CDI's motion. (Doc. 30; Doc. 31). On December 7, 2023, Skytop filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a brief in support of its motion.^[2] (Doc. 26; Doc. 27). On December 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed an answer to statement of facts and a brief in opposition to Skytop's motion. (Doc. 36; Doc. 37). On December 15, 2023, Edelrid NA filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for a more definite statement as well as a brief in support of its motion. (Doc. 28; Doc. 29). On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed an answer to statement of facts and a brief in opposition to Edelrid NA's motion. (Doc. 36; Doc. 37). On December 18, 2023, Petzl filed a motion to dismiss pursuant Rule 12(e) and Rule 12(b)(6) as well as a brief in support. (Doc. 32; Doc. 33). On December 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed an answer to statement of facts and a brief in opposition to Petzl's motion. (Doc. 40; Doc. 41).

On January 11, 2024, Challenges Unlimited filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and accompanying exhibits. (Doc. 46). On January 18, 2024, Challenges Unlimited filed a brief in support of its motion to dismiss. (Doc. 49). On January 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed an answer to statement of facts and a brief in opposition to Challenges Unlimited's motion. (Doc. 50; Doc. 51). On January 22, 2024, CDI filed a brief in opposition to Challenger Unlimited's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 52). On February 1, 2024, Challenges Unlimited filed a reply brief. (Doc. 57). On May 13, 2024, Edelrid GmbH filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 70). Edelrid GmbH refiled its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on May 16, 2024. (Doc. 72). On May 21, 2024, upon this Court's Order, Edelrid GmbH correctly filed its brief in support of the motion. (Doc. 73). On May 22, 2024, CDI filed a brief in opposition to Edelrid GmbH's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 74). On May 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to GmbH's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 76) Accordingly, each motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition. (Doc. 24; Doc. 26; Doc. 28; Doc. 32; Doc. 46; Doc. 70; Doc. 72).

II. Legal Standard

A. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a defendant to move to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To assess the sufficiency of a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must first take note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim, then identify mere conclusions that are not entitled to the assumption of truth, and finally determine whether the complaint's factual allegations, taken as true, could plausibly satisfy the elements of the legal claim. Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 221 (3d Cir. 2011). in deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may consider the facts alleged on the face of the complaint, as well as “documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.s. 308, 322 (2007).

After recognizing the required elements that make up the legal claim, a court should “begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The plaintiff must provide some factual ground for relief, which “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “[T]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Thus, courts “need not credit a complaint's ‘bald assertions' or ‘legal conclusions'. . . ” Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1429-30 (3d Cir. 1997)). Nor need a court assume that a plaintiff can prove facts that the plaintiff has not alleged. Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).

A court must then determine whether the well-pleaded factual allegations give rise to a plausible claim for relief. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Palakovic v. Wetzel, 854 F.3d 209, 219-20 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp., 609 F.3d 239, 262 n.27 (3d Cir. 2010). The court must accept as true all allegations in the complaint, and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom are to be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). This “presumption of truth attaches only to those allegations for which there is sufficient factual matter to render them plausible on their face.” Schuchardt v. President of the U.S., 839 F.3d 336, 347 (3d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

The plausibility determination is context-specific and does not impose a heightened pleading requirement. Schuchardt, 839 F.3d at 347.

B. Personal Jurisdiction

A Federal Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant to the extent permissible under the laws of the state in which the court sits. Mellon Bank (E.) PSFS, Nat. Ass'n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1221 (3d Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). The forum state in this instance is Pennsylvania, and the applicable long arm statute is codified at 42 Pa. stat. and Cons. stat. Ann. § 5322(b). This statute permits courts in Pennsylvania to exercise jurisdiction “to the fullest extent allowed under the Constitution of the United states and may be based on the most minimum contact with this Commonwealth allowed under the Constitution of the United States.” 42 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5322(b). Thus, this Court may properly exercise jurisdiction over Defendants so long as it does not violate their due process rights. See Mellon Bank, 960 F.2d at 1221.

With respect to this constitutional inquiry, the “Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that nonresident defendants have ‘certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'” Kehm Oil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 537 F.3d 290, 299-300 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.s. 310, 316 (1945)). “Having minimum contacts with another state provides ‘fair warning' to a defendant that he or she may be subject to suit in that state.” Kehm Oil, 537 F.3d at 299-300 (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985)). As such, personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause...