985 F.3d 135
1st Cir.2021Background
- In April 2016 a Massachusetts family stayed at a Residence Inn in Montreal; the husband and two-year-old son drowned in the hotel pool.
- Plaintiff Chimene Nandjou (Massachusetts resident at time of events) sued Reluxicorp (Canadian franchisee/owner), Marriott International, Inc., and Marriott Worldwide Corp. in Suffolk County, MA, asserting wrongful death, negligent infliction of emotional distress, conscious pain and suffering, and vicarious liability; punitive damages were sought.
- Defendants removed to the U.S. District Court (D. Mass.); the district court (1) found personal jurisdiction over all defendants based on Marriott’s marketing into Massachusetts (attributed in part to Reluxicorp), and (2) later dismissed the action on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of Canada (subject to submitting to jurisdiction there).
- On appeal the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of personal jurisdiction over all three defendants but reversed the forum non conveniens dismissal.
- The First Circuit emphasized that key witnesses (notably the plaintiff’s two surviving children and several U.S.-based third-party eyewitnesses) weigh strongly against depriving the plaintiff of her U.S. home forum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forum non conveniens — adequacy and balancing of private/public interests | Canada is an adequate alternative but private/public factors do not strongly favor dismissal because key witnesses (children, U.S. eyewitnesses, damages witnesses) are in U.S. | Most important witnesses and documentary evidence are in Canada; litigation in Canada is more convenient | Reversed dismissal: although Canada is adequate and public factors neutral, private-interest balancing was misweighed; U.S. witnesses (especially children) defeat dismissal |
| Personal jurisdiction — Marriott defendants (marketing in MA) | Marketing directly targeted plaintiff in MA; solicitation induced the stay; contacts relate to tort claims | Marketing at most a but-for cause and too attenuated to satisfy relatedness for specific jurisdiction | Affirmed: targeted direct-mail to MA residents supporting relatedness and purposeful availment under Nowak framework |
| Personal jurisdiction — Reluxicorp (attribution of Marriott’s MA contacts) | Marriott’s marketing may be imputed to Reluxicorp (franchise relationship; holding out) and agency by estoppel; plaintiff relied on Marriott-branded materials | No actual agency/control over marketing specifics; contacts should not be imputed to Reluxicorp | Affirmed: agency-by-estoppel and Reluxicorp’s holding-out (use of Marriott branding) supported imputing contacts and satisfied relatedness |
| Alternative ground to affirm — lack of personal jurisdiction | N/A | Defendants urged affirmance of dismissal on ground of no personal jurisdiction | Rejected: First Circuit found prima facie evidence of minimum contacts and due process satisfied for all defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Howe v. Goldcorp Invs., Ltd., 946 F.2d 944 (1st Cir.) (forum non conveniens analysis where most evidence/witnesses in foreign forum)
- Adelson v. Hananel, 510 F.3d 43 (1st Cir.) (heavy burden on defendant to overcome plaintiff’s home-forum presumption)
- Iragorri v. Int'l Elevator, Inc., 203 F.3d 8 (1st Cir.) (two-step forum non conveniens inquiry; focus on witness location and live testimony)
- Nowak v. Tak How Invs., Ltd., 94 F.3d 708 (1st Cir.) (relatedness for specific jurisdiction may be satisfied where defendant targets forum residents to cultivate business)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1981) (home-forum presumption and forum non conveniens framework)
- Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malay. Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (U.S. 2007) (district court may dismiss on forum non conveniens when alternative forum is foreign)
- Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 571 U.S. 49 (U.S. 2013) (transfer principles and forum-selection context referenced in forum non conveniens discussions)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts/ due process baseline)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (U.S. 2014) (limits on general jurisdiction; informs specific-jurisdiction analysis)
- Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, P.A., 290 F.3d 42 (1st Cir.) (imputing one party’s forum contacts to another via agency/agency by estoppel)