Anthony Fidrych v. Marriott International, Inc.
952 F.3d 124
4th Cir.2020Background
- Bud Fidrych (SC resident) was injured in Milan when a glass shower door at the Boscolo Milano (an Autograph Collection hotel) shattered; Boscolo is not owned or managed by Marriott.
- Fidryches sued Marriott in federal court in South Carolina; Marriott failed to timely answer, clerk entered default, and the district court set a damages hearing but awarded no damages.
- Marriott moved a few days after notice to set aside the default, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction; the district court set aside the default under Rule 55 and later dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs sought >$86,000 in attorneys’ fees as sanctions for Marriott’s late answer; the second district judge denied sanctions as "excessive" and lacking causal link.
- Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, vacated the denial of sanctions, and remanded for a fuller explanation regarding sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for setting aside default | District court should have applied Rule 60(b) (excusable neglect) because the court entered a "default judgment" beyond ministerial clerk entry | Rule 55 (good cause) governs because no final default judgment was entered (no damages awarded) | Rule 55 applies; order was not a final default judgment, so district court properly used Rule 55 — affirmed |
| General jurisdiction | Marriott's certificate of authority, franchise/licensing of 90 SC hotels, and website contacts render it "at home" or show consent to suit in SC | Marriott not incorporated or headquartered in SC; SC contacts are a small part of global operations; SC law does not automatically convert a certificate of authority into consent to general jurisdiction | No general jurisdiction: Marriott not "at home" in SC and certificate of authority does not automatically constitute consent under SC law — affirmed |
| Specific jurisdiction (website / reservation) | Marriott’s interactive website (accessible to SC residents; drop-down includes SC) and Fidrych’s review/booking connections tie the claim to SC | The injury and operative conduct occurred in Italy; website is general (not targeted at SC) and does not show purposeful availment | No specific jurisdiction: suit-related contacts too tenuous; website not specifically directed at SC residents — affirmed |
| Sanctions for late answer | Fee award appropriate as a lesser sanction to default; district court abused discretion and failed to explain denial | Any sanctions would be void because court lacked personal jurisdiction over merits | Denial of sanctions vacated and remanded: appellate court rejected the idea that lack of PJ over merits bars sanctions proceedings but required district court to provide an adequate explanation for its discretionary ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (established minimum-contacts test for personal jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (limits general jurisdiction to forums where corporation is "at home")
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (clarified scope of general jurisdiction)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (specific-jurisdiction relatedness requirement)
- Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982) (personal jurisdiction may be waived by consent)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (defendant’s suit-related conduct must create substantial connection with forum)
- ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002) (adopted Zippo sliding-scale approach for internet contacts)
- Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (interactive-passive website sliding scale)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (sanctions proceedings are collateral and may be adjudicated after main action)
- Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131 (1992) (Rule 11 sanctions can be imposed even if court later lacks subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178 (2017) (courts have inherent sanctioning power, including fee-shifting for bad-faith litigation conduct)
- Calderon v. GEICO Gen. Ins., 754 F.3d 201 (4th Cir. 2014) (default-judgment finality principles)