Mische v. Bracey's Supermarket
22 A.3d 56
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2011Background
- Plaintiff suffered a slip-and-fall at defendant Bracey’s Supermarket d/b/a Bills Shop Rite Supermarket in Mt. Pocono, Pennsylvania, then moved to New Jersey.
- Plaintiff filed the personal injury action in New Jersey Law Division on July 13, 2009.
- Defendant, a Pennsylvania corporation, certified that it does not conduct business in New Jersey, owns property there, or employ agents in New Jersey.
- Plaintiff argued defendant is part of Wakefern Food Corp.’s Shop Rite cooperative, based in New Jersey, which supplies goods and services to its member stores.
- Plaintiff submitted Wakefern materials showing defendant purchases 85% of its products from Wakefern and that Wakefern provides advertising, payroll, and accounting services.
- The trial court dismissed for lack of in-state long-arm jurisdiction; on appeal, the issue was whether membership in a New Jersey‑based cooperative supports jurisdiction over a claim unrelated to that membership.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New Jersey has general jurisdiction over defendant. | Wakefern membership creates substantial NJ presence. | No NJ property, business, agents, or advertising; no general jurisdiction. | No general jurisdiction; contacts insufficient. |
| Whether NJ can exercise jurisdiction over a claim unrelated to Wakefern membership. | Cooperative affiliation plus NJ-based advertising supports jurisdiction. | Contacts are unrelated to the Pennsylvania slip-and-fall claim. | Jurisdiction not supported; claim unrelated to membership. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 138 N.J. 106 (1994) (distinguishes specific vs general jurisdiction; general requires continuous, substantial contacts)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (specific jurisdiction framework for forum contacts)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (general jurisdiction requires continuous and substantial contacts)
- Pfundstein v. Omnicom Group, Inc., 285 N.J. Super. 245 (App. Div. 1995) (subsidiary ownership alone not enough for jurisdiction over parent)
- Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Reimer Express World Corp., 230 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2000) (imputing corporate contacts requires more than ownership)
- Rolls-Royce Motors, Inc. v. Charles Schmitt & Co., 657 F.Supp. 1040 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (mere purchases insufficient for general jurisdiction)