268 F. Supp. 3d 1336
S.D. Fla.2017Background
- Plaintiffs William and Lynn McCullough purchased a Royal Caribbean shore excursion (Adrena-Line zip line) for a July 15, 2015 stop in St. Lucia; Mrs. McCullough fell ~50 feet during a rappelling segment and suffered catastrophic injuries; Mr. McCullough sustained injury and emotional distress witnessing the fall.
- Plaintiffs sued Royal Caribbean and a group of related entities and individuals collectively called the “Rain Forest Defendants,” asserting negligence, vicarious liability/agency, joint venture, strict liability, negligent misrepresentation, and related claims.
- Four defendants (EMJO Investments Ltd.; AP Electrical Service, LLC; John Dalton; Andrew Pierce) challenged personal jurisdiction and moved to dismiss; jurisdictional discovery was allowed and the parties submitted affidavits and interrogatory responses.
- Plaintiffs sought general personal jurisdiction over the four based on alleged ties among Rain Forest entities, von der Goltz’s contacts, and agency/alter-ego theories; defendants argued lack of domicile, presence, or sufficient contacts with Florida.
- The Court found plaintiffs failed to show that any of the four defendants are "essentially at home" in Florida (or in the U.S. for Rule 4(k)(2)), rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to impute Florida contacts via agency/ownership, and dismissed all claims against those four defendants without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court has general personal jurisdiction over EMJO | EMJO is connected to Rain Forest entities that consented to jurisdiction; von der Goltz’s control/contacts should be imputed | EMJO is a BVI company with principal place in BVI, no Florida presence or contacts | No general jurisdiction over EMJO; plaintiffs failed to meet Daimler standard |
| Whether court has general personal jurisdiction over AP Electrical, Pierce, Dalton | Plaintiffs point to invoices, Miami communications, mail forwarding, and Rain Forest employment ties | Each individual/entity is domiciled elsewhere and lacks domiciliary contacts making Florida "home" | No general jurisdiction over AP Electrical, Pierce, or Dalton |
| Whether agency/consent theory (Meier/Stubbs) can impute RF contacts to nonresident defendants | Plaintiffs rely on Meier/Stubbs to impute contacts from Florida-related subsidiaries/agents | Defendants argue Daimler rejects broad agency-based general jurisdiction; no alter-ego or domination shown | Court rejects plaintiffs’ agency theory as inconsistent with Daimler; imputation fails |
| Whether Rule 4(k)(2) (national contacts aggregation) or transfer under 28 U.S.C. §1631 remedies jurisdictional defect | Plaintiffs urged Rule 4(k)(2) or sever-and-transfer of claims against those defendants | Defendants note each has a state of general jurisdiction; EMJO lacks U.S. contacts sufficient for 4(k)(2); severance would create duplicative litigation | Rejected Rule 4(k)(2) and denied severance/transfer as not in interest of justice; dismissed claims without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (foundational minimum-contacts due process standard)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (limits general jurisdiction to place of incorporation/principal place of business; third‑forum jurisdiction is exceptional)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (general jurisdiction requires affiliations so continuous and systematic as to render defendant at home)
- Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (example of exceptional case permitting general jurisdiction outside incorporation/principal place)
- Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339 (burden-shifting in jurisdictional challenges and evidentiary showing)
- Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1209 (affidavits in jurisdictional context must state facts within affiant's personal knowledge)
- Stubbs v. Wyndham Nassau Resort & Crystal Palace Casino, 447 F.3d 1357 (Eleventh Circuit agency-based jurisdiction theory relied on by plaintiffs; court distinguishes post-Daimler)
- Meier ex rel. Meier v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 288 F.3d 1264 (agency/subsidiary contact imputation decision that Daimler later narrowed)