Marshall v. Hipcamp Inc
3:23-cv-06156
W.D. Wash.Nov 8, 2023Background
- On May 8, 2021, Jacob Marshall fell 80 feet from a cliff at a campsite in Stevenson, Washington, sustaining serious injuries; the campsite was owned/managed by Steven Epling/Go River, LLC.
- The campsite was booked on Hipcamp’s website on May 3, 2021 by Marshall’s girlfriend while she was in Oregon.
- Hipcamp is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco; it operates an interactive booking platform, lists hundreds of Oregon campsites, markets in Oregon, takes commissions, handles payments/taxes, and offers host insurance.
- Marshall sued in Oregon asserting negligence and gross negligence against Hipcamp and the Washington defendants; Hipcamp moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and alternatively to compel arbitration.
- The magistrate judge found no general jurisdiction over Hipcamp but concluded Hipcamp purposefully availed itself of Oregon and that Marshall’s claims related to those contacts; however, exercising specific jurisdiction in Oregon would be unreasonable given the Washington locus of the alleged negligence and witnesses, and recommended dismissal and transfer to the Western District of Washington under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
- Because the court lacked personal jurisdiction, it did not resolve Hipcamp’s motion to compel arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General personal jurisdiction | Hipcamp’s extensive Oregon activity (listings, contracts, ads) makes Oregon its home for jurisdictional purposes | Hipcamp is not incorporated or principally based in Oregon; contacts are insufficient for all-purpose jurisdiction | No general jurisdiction; Oregon is not an "exceptional" forum |
| Purposeful availment (first prong of specific jurisdiction) | Hipcamp’s Oregon-specific listings, interactive booking, marketing, commission, tax handling, and insurance show affirmative conduct directed at Oregon | Booking by plaintiff’s girlfriend in Oregon was fortuitous; Hipcamp did not target plaintiff personally | Court held Hipcamp purposefully availed itself of Oregon through targeted commercial activities |
| Nexus — do claims arise out of or relate to forum contacts (second prong) | Marshall alleges Hipcamp encouraged/promoted use of the Property via its platform when booking from Oregon, linking the injury to Hipcamp’s Oregon contacts | Injury occurred in Washington; any connection to Oregon booking is fortuitous and weak | Court found the claims “related to” Hipcamp’s Oregon contacts (causation not strictly required) |
| Reasonableness / forum non conveniens and transfer | Marshall resides in Oregon and has local counsel; Oregon is convenient | Most evidence, witnesses, and applicable law are in Washington; Washington is an available alternative forum | Court held exercising jurisdiction in Oregon would be unreasonable and recommended transfer to the Western District of Washington under § 1631 |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes minimum-contacts due process standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and reasonableness inquiry for specific jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (contacts must be with the forum state itself, not with forum residents)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (limits general jurisdiction to a corporation’s place of incorporation and principal place of business, absent exceptional circumstances)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (clarifies “arise out of or relate to” standard for specific jurisdiction; causation not strictly required)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff bears burden to make prima facie showing of jurisdiction on written materials)
- Freestream Aircraft (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Aero Law Grp., 905 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2018) (sets multi-factor reasonableness test for specific jurisdiction)
- Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008) (practical evaluation of internet-based contacts and specific jurisdiction analysis)