Capital Resorts Group LLC v. Wesley Financial Group LLC
4:24-cv-03043
| D.S.C. | Apr 7, 2025Background
- Capital Resorts Group, LLC ("Capital Vacations"), headquartered in South Carolina, markets and manages vacation destinations and alleges that Wesley Financial Group ("Wesley") uses deceptive practices to interfere with its timeshare contracts.
- Wesley is a Tennessee LLC led by CEO Charles McDowell, based in Tennessee. Capital Vacations sued both Wesley and McDowell, seeking damages and injunctive relief for violations of South Carolina and North Carolina statutes.
- The lawsuit alleges that Wesley lures customers (timeshare owners) using false advertising and induces them to breach their timeshare agreements, resulting in financial harm to Capital Vacations and its business.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Plaintiff sought leave for jurisdictional discovery and to extend briefing.
- The court addressed whether it had personal jurisdiction over McDowell and Wesley (particularly concerning North Carolina claims), and whether Capital Vacations stated a valid claim under the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over McDowell | McDowell is the "guiding spirit" behind Wesley, owning and controlling its actions directed at SC | McDowell's only actions were as CEO/owner in TN, not personal acts directed at SC; fiduciary shield applies | No personal jurisdiction over McDowell; ownership/control alone is not enough |
| Personal jurisdiction over Defendants for NC Timeshare Act claims | Wesley's activities in NC and with NC residents connect it to SC due to Capital's HQ and injury realized in SC | NC claims pertain solely to activity in NC under NC law, not SC—no purposeful availment of SC | No jurisdiction for NC Timeshare Act claims—claims do not arise from SC-related activity |
| General jurisdiction over Defendants in SC | Wesley does business with SC residents, so is "at home" in SC | Contacts with SC are too limited for general jurisdiction | No general jurisdiction—contacts are not sufficiently continuous/systematic |
| SCUTPA claim sufficiency | Wesley’s deceptive acts harm Capital Vacations and public interest is affected; alleges proximate harms and monetary losses | SCUTPA claim fails: seeks relief for 3rd-party injuries, causation and deception are insufficient | SCUTPA claim survives—allegations sufficient at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- ESAB Grp., Inc. v. Centricut, Inc., 126 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 1997) (personal jurisdiction analysis and SC long-arm statute reach)
- ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002) (specific/general personal jurisdiction standards)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (general jurisdiction; "at home" standard)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (limits on general personal jurisdiction, "unacceptably grasping" approach rejected)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard under Rule 8/12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)