Chamberlin v. Venture Resorts, Inc. (JRG1), 3:17-cv-00215

Plaintiffs rented a cabin at Gatlinburg Falls Resort (Tennessee) on Nov. 27–28, 2016 and experienced a nearby wildfire that destroyed the cabin and about $20,000 in personal property.
Plaintiffs called the resort multiple times; they allege resort staff assured them evacuation was unnecessary, but later the plaintiffs fled when flames approached and observed the resort office evacuated without guest notice.
Plaintiffs sued in the Middle District of Florida alleging innkeeper liability and gross negligence, invoking diversity jurisdiction.
The Complaint’s sole jurisdictional allegation states Defendant is a Tennessee corporation with its principal place of business in Sevier County, Tennessee; it does not allege business operations or an office in Florida.
Plaintiffs’ response (unsworn) claimed Defendant advertises to Florida residents and emailed plaintiffs, invoking Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(1); those allegations were not in the complaint and were not supported by affidavits or a motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery.
The Court found personal jurisdiction was not adequately pled and dismissed the complaint, transferring the case to the Eastern District of Tennessee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Florida court has personal jurisdiction over a Tennessee resort	Plaintiffs: Defendant targets Florida residents (ads, emails) and thus conducts business in Florida under Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(1)	Defendant: Complaint lacks any factual allegation that it operated or had an office in Florida; allegations are insufficient	Court: Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; plaintiffs failed to plead a prima facie basis under Florida’s long-arm statute
Whether the Court should permit jurisdictional discovery or amendment	Plaintiffs: (implied) discovery or amendment could supply jurisdictional facts	Defendant: No jurisdictional facts pled; no basis to delay dismissal	Court: Rejected—plaintiffs never properly sought discovery or moved to amend; unsworn assertions in response disregarded
Whether to address subject-matter jurisdiction after personal jurisdiction challenge	N/A	N/A	Court: Declined to reach subject-matter jurisdiction, resolving case on personal jurisdiction first
Proper remedy when federal forum lacks personal jurisdiction but transfer is appropriate	Plaintiffs: Maintain suit in Middle District of Florida	Defendant: Move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction	Court: Granted motion to dismiss and transferred the case to the Eastern District of Tennessee under 28 U.S.C. § 1631

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations not entitled to assumption of truth)
La Grasta v. First Union Securities, Inc., 358 F.3d 840 (pleading and documents courts may consider on motion to dismiss)
Day v. Taylor, 400 F.3d 1272 (same)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (factual allegations must be accepted as true at motion to dismiss stage)
Davila v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d 1183 (conclusory allegations insufficient to avoid dismissal)
Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510 (prima facie standard for jurisdictional allegations)
PVC Windoors, Inc. v. Babbitbay Beach Const., N.V., 598 F.3d 802 (jurisdictional pleading standards)
United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260 (two-step personal jurisdiction inquiry under state long-arm statute and due process)
Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1209 (plaintiff bears burden to plead prima facie case of jurisdiction)
Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (court may decide personal jurisdiction first when straightforward)