MCCAFFREY v. WINDSOR AT WINDERMERE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
2:17-cv-00460
E.D. Pa.May 8, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Stepfanie McCaffrey, a West Chester, PA tenant, sued after smoke from other tenants’ fireplace allegedly caused her physical and emotional injuries. Complaint filed in state court and amended to name WWLP, WWIC, Windsor Communities, and Windsor Property Management Company; removed to federal court.
- Lease for the apartment identifies WWLP as owner but was executed by Windsor Property Management Company as agent; lease contains a Pennsylvania terms heading and an arbitration-location clause.
- Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleged WWLP and WWIC were Pennsylvania entities (and Windsor Communities a Massachusetts business); defendants asserted they are Delaware entities (WWLP a Delaware LP, WWIC a Delaware corporation) and that Windsor Communities is merely a trade name.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2); no jurisdictional discovery or evidentiary hearing was sought.
- Plaintiff argued both general and specific jurisdiction based on defendants’ alleged registration to do business in Pennsylvania, business contacts, the lease, and that the operative events occurred in Pennsylvania.
- The court found plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of either general or specific personal jurisdiction over WWLP, WWIC, or Windsor Communities, dismissed those claims without prejudice, and granted leave to amend to plead jurisdictional facts if possible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has general jurisdiction over defendants | Defendants registered to do business and maintained offices in PA, so they are "at home" here | Defendants are neither incorporated nor have principal places of business in PA; Daimler limits general jurisdiction to where entity is "at home" | No general jurisdiction; plaintiff failed to show continuous and systematic contacts making defendants "at home" in PA |
| Whether the court has specific jurisdiction over WWLP (owner) | Lease and defendant’s business contacts in PA relate to plaintiff’s claims arising in PA | Lease was executed by Windsor Property Management Company (agent), not WWLP; mere ownership of property or signing agent’s lease is insufficient without acts by WWLP directed to forum | No specific jurisdiction over WWLP; plaintiff did not show WWLP purposefully directed activities causing the injury |
| Whether the court has specific jurisdiction over WWIC (investor/capital provider) | WWIC registered to do business in PA and thus purposefully availed itself | WWIC provided capital only; registration alone is insufficient and no forum-directed activities tied to plaintiff’s claim | No specific jurisdiction over WWIC; plaintiff failed to link WWIC’s forum activities to the claim |
| Whether Windsor Communities is a proper defendant subject to jurisdiction | Alleged parent of WWLP and part of the Windermere defendants | Windsor Communities is a trade name, not a separate legal entity, and plaintiff offered no jurisdictional allegations | No jurisdiction and claims dismissed as to Windsor Communities; plaintiff conceded no jurisdictional showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, Inc., 566 F.3d 324 (3d Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to establish personal jurisdiction; prima facie standard where no evidentiary hearing)
- Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93 (3d Cir.) (on a prima facie showing courts accept plaintiff’s allegations and draw factual disputes in plaintiff’s favor)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S.) (general jurisdiction limited to where corporation is essentially at home)
- O’Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312 (3d Cir.) (three-part test for specific jurisdiction: purposeful direction/availment, claim arises out of forum contacts, and fairness)
- Provident Nat. Bank v. Cal. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n., 819 F.2d 434 (3d Cir.) (specific jurisdiction arises when cause of action stems from defendant’s forum activities)
- Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248 (3d Cir.) (specific jurisdiction is claim-specific and requires a link between claim and forum contacts)
- Applied Biosystems, Inc. v. Cruachem, Ltd., 772 F. Supp. 1458 (D. Del.) (agency theory for jurisdiction: only principal-directed acts by agent may support jurisdiction)
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (U.S.) (court may choose among threshold grounds, including jurisdictional dismissals)
- Carden v. Arkoma Assoc., 494 U.S. 185 (U.S.) (partnerships’ citizenship depends on the citizenship of each partner)
- Swiger v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., 540 F.3d 179 (3d Cir.) (complete diversity requirement for partnerships)