W.F. v. Camp Lohikan, Inc. et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 3:25-cv-00853-JKM Document14 Filed 02/20/26 Page1of12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

W.F., : No. 3:25cv853
Plaintiff ,
(Judge Munley)
V.

CAMP LOHIKAN, INC.; and CAMP
LOHIKAN, LLC,
Defendants

Oe eee ee eee eee eee eee ee eee eee ee eee eee eee ee eee eee eee eee eee ee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee ee
PoP ee ee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee ee ey

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This case arises from allegations of sexual assault at a summer camp.
Plaintiff, W.F., a minor, brings claims against Defendants Camp Lohikan, Inc. and
Camp Lohikan, LLC (hereinafter “Camp Lohikan’) for negligence, gross
negligence, and recklessness arising out of the alleged sexual assault. (Doc. 1).

Presently before the court are two motions filed by Camp Lohikan: 1) a
motion to remove the case to state court under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure; and a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) or, in the
alternative, to appoint a representative for the minor plaintiff. (Doc. 6). For the
reasons that follow, the motion to remove the case to state court and the motion
to dismiss will be denied; however, the motion to appoint a representative for the

minor plaintiff will be granted.

Case 3:25-cv-00853-JKM Document14 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2of12

Background

W.F. attended Camp Lohikan for three (3) consecutive summers beginning
in 2019." (Doc. 1, Compl. ] 11). In July 2021, when he was thirteen (13) years
old, plaintiff allegedly sat in his assigned cabin with his cabinmates and a camp
counselor. (Id. {[ 13). That day, several children who were not assigned to
plaintiff's cabin allegedly entered and began acting rowdy. (Id. J 15).

According to the complaint, one of the boys from another cabin pushed
W.F. down onto his bed and instructed other boys to hold him down. (Id. J 18).
The complaint asserts that while six (6) other boys restrained W.F. face-down on
the bed, the first boy proceeded to sexually assault him with a broomstick. (Id. J
19). W.F. further alleges that the incident occurred in the presence of a camp
counselor who failed to report the assault to his superiors or to law enforcement.
(Id. Jf] 16, 20, 21). It is alleged that the boys involved were neither disciplined
nor expelled from the camp. (Id. J 21). Plaintiff claims that he suffered severe
and permanent injuries as a result of the incident. (Id. ¥] 25).

On May 14, 2025, plaintiff filed a one-count complaint asserting negligence,

gross negligence, and recklessness against Camp Lohikan. (Id. J] 27-30). On

1 These brief background facts are derived from plaintiff's complaint. At this stage of the
proceedings, the court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true. Phillips v.
Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008). The court makes no determination,
however, as to the ultimate veracity of these assertions.

2

Case 3:25-cv-00853-JKM Document14 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3of12

June 24, 2025, Camp Lohikan moved to remove the case to state court, dismiss
the complaint, or in the alternative, request that the court appoint a competent
adult to represent the minor plaintiff. (Doc. 6). The parties have filed briefs in
support of their positions, bringing the case to its present posture.
Jurisdiction

The court has jurisdiction pursuant to the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. §
1332. W.F. is a citizen of the State of New York. (Doc. 1, Compl. §[ 1).
Defendants Camp Lohikan Inc. and Camp Lohikan LLC are citizens of
Pennsylvania. (Id. {If 2, 3). Additionally, the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. (Id. {| 4). Because complete diversity of citizenship exists among the
parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the court has jurisdiction
over this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (“[D]istrict courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between... citizens of
different States[.]’). As a federal court sitting in diversity, the substantive law of

Pennsylvania shall apply to the instant case. Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210

F.3d 154, 158 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78

(1938)).

Case 3:25-cv-00853-JKM Document14 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4of12

Legal Standard

Under Rule 12(b)(3), a court may dismiss a complaint for improper venue.
FED. R. Clv. P. 12(b)(3). “Because improper venue is an affirmative defense, the
burden of proving lack of proper venue remains—at all times—with the

defendant.” Great W. Min. & Min. Co. v. ADR Options, Inc., 434 F. App'x 83, 86

(3d Cir. 2011). In resolving a Rule 12(b)(3) motion, the court must accept the
allegations in the complaint as true and may consider affidavits submitted by the

parties. Advoc. Tr. LLC v. Fed. Express Corp., No. 2:25-CV-03363, 2025 WL

2779336, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 26, 2025): see also Myers v. Am. Dental Ass'n,

695 F.2d 716 (3d Cir. 1982) (considering both parties’ affidavits in ruling on a
motion to dismiss). If the court determines that venue is improper, it “shall
dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or
division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Nonetheless,
“[t]ransfer is not available, however, when a forum selection clause specifies a

non-federal forum.” Salovaara v. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co., 246 F.3d 289, 298

(3d Cir. 2001)). In that circumstance, dismissal is the only appropriate remedy.

Id.

Case 3:25-cv-00853-JKM Document14 Filed 02/20/26 Page5of12

1. Enforceability of the Forum Selection Clause Against Minor
Camp Lohikan avers that W.F.’s father, M.F., signed camper applications
on his behalf in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021.? (Doc. 7, Br. in Supp. at 2; Doc. 6,
Exs. 1-3). Each application included a forum selection clause providing that:
It is agreed that the venue and place of trial of any dispute
or cause of action arising between the parties, whether out
of this agreement or otherwise, shall be the Court of
Common Pleas located in Wayne County, Pennsylvania,
and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of
Pennsylvania.
(Id.)°
Based on the foregoing, Camp Lohikan contends that this action should be
removed to the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas pursuant to the forum

selection clause contained in the camper application signed by plaintiff's father

and natural guardian. (Doc. 7, Br. in Supp. at 2-3). Plaintiff disagrees and argues

? Both parties agree that M.F. was the only parent to sign W.F.’s camper applications on his
behalf.

3 Camp Lohikan attached to its motions camper applications pertaining to W.F., emails
between Camp Lohikan and W.F.’s parents, and screen shots of Camp Lohikan’s records.
(Docs. 6-4 — 6-10). A court “may consider an undisputedly authentic document that a
defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiffs claims are based on the
document.” Citisteel USA, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 78 F. App’x 832, 835 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting
Pension Ben. Guar. Corp., 998 F.2d at 1196). Furthermore, where a document is integral to or
explicitly relied upon in the complaint, it may be considered without converting a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim into one for summary judgment under Rule 56. Doe v.
Princeton Univ., 30 F.4th 335, 342 (3d Cir. 2022) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted). W.F. expressly references his summer camp experiences at Camp Lohikan in his
complaint. Moreover, W.F. does not dispute the authenticity of the attached documents.
Thus, the court will consider these documents.

Case 3:25-cv-00853-JKM Document14 Filed 02/20/26 Page 6of12

that the forum selection clause is unenforceable against him. (Doc. 9, Br. in Opp.
at 2).

“The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has made clear that parties may
freely contract to limit venue to one of several available venues.” Somerlot v.

Jung, 343 A.3d 324, 331 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025), reargument denied (Oct. 9,

2025). The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania first recognized such an exception in

Cent. Contracting Co. v.C. E. Youngdahl & Co., 418 Pa. 122, 209 A.2d 810

(1965). Id.

Under Central Contracting Co., “[t]he modern and correct rule is that... a

court... . should decline to proceed with the cause when the parties have freely
agreed that litigation shall be conducted in another forum and where such

agreement is not unreasonable at the time of litigation.” 4 Central Contracting Co.,

209 A.2d at 816 (citation omitted).

The parties agree that the modern trend favors enforcing forum selection
clauses that are clear and unambiguous. They dispute, however, whether a
forum selection clause contained in a contract signed by a parent on behalf of a

child is enforceable against the child. Notably, both parties rely on portions of

4 An agreement is unreasonable “where its enforcement would . . . seriously impair plaintiff's
ability to pursue his cause of action. Mere inconvenience or additional expense is not the test
of unreasonableness since it may be assumed that the plaintiff received under the contract
consideration for these things.” Cent. Contracting Co. v. C. E. Youngdahl & Co., 418 Pa. 122,
133, 209 A.2d 810, 816 (1965)

6

Case 3:25-cv-00853-JKM Document14 Filed 02/20/26 Page 7 of 12

Santiago v. Philly Trampoline Park, LLC, 291 A.3d 1213 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023), to

support their respective positions.
When Camp Lohikan’s motions were fully briefed, Santiago was pending
before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Two months later, the Supreme Court

affirmed the Superior Court’s decision. Santiago v. Philly Trampoline Park, LLC,

343 A.3d 995, 1001 (Pa. 2025). Accordingly, the parties’ reliance on Santiago
remains relevant.

Santiago involved consolidated appeals arising from injuries sustained by
minors at defendants’ facilities. Id. at 999. The defendants, operators of
trampoline parks, required patrons seeking entry to execute “Participation
Agreement, Release and Assumption of the Risk” document. Id. In each case,
only one parent signed the agreement on the behalf of their child. Id. The
Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that the agreement was unenforceable
against the claims of the injured minor and the non-signing parent. Id.

Specifically, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained that “[t]he law
recognizes two categories of guardians: guardians of the person, who are
‘invested with the care of the person of the minor[,]’ and guardians of the estate,
who are ‘entrusted with the control of the property of the minor.’ ” Id. at 1011

(quoting In re Stapas, 820 A.2d 850, 857 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003). These are

“distinct and mutually exclusive” spheres of authority. Id. “Accordingly, parents,

Case 3:25-cv-00853-JKM Document14 Filed 02/20/26 Page 8 of 12

who are recognized as natural guardians with rights to the care and custody of
their minor children, have “no authority whatever to exercise any control over the
estate of the minor.” ld.

With that framework in mind, the Supreme Court has recognized that an
accrued cause of action constitutes a vested property right. Santiago, 343 A.3d
at 1012. “When a minor is injured, the parents and the minor have separate
actionable claims; the parents have a claim for medical expenses and the loss of
the minor's services, and the minor has claims for pain and suffering and for

losses after minority.” Santiago, 343 A.3d at 1012 (citing Dellacasse v. Floyd, 2

A.2d 860, 862 n.1 (Pa. 1938)).°
In light of this precedent, W.F.’s right to bring a cause of action is a
property right that his father could not waive on his behalf absent court approval

or appointment as guardian of the minor’s estate. See Santiago, 343 A.3d at

1012; Steffe, 2025 WL 2877829, at *5. Although Santiago addressed a forum

selection clause requiring arbitration, its reasoning applies with equal force to the

° “Natural guardianship confers no right to intermeddle with the property of the infant, but is a
mere personal right ... to the custody” of the minor. Santiago, 343 A.3d at 1011 (quotation
omitted). “Guardians of the estate, in contrast, serve to affect a minor's estate and property in a
manner that serves the best interests of the minor.” Id.

6 “TA minor’s] right to bring a cause of action is a property right that her parents could not waive
on her behalf without court approval or a court order appointing her parents as guardians of
her estate. Steffe v. Toll PA, LP, No. 2043 EDA 2024, 2025 WL 2877829, at *5 (Pa. Super. Ct.
Oct. 9, 2025) (citing Santiago, 343 A.3d at 1002),

8

Case 3:25-cv-00853-JKM Document14 Filed 02/20/26 Page 9of12

clause at issue here referring the matter to state court. As the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court made clear, “[pJarents, as natural guardians, do not have an
inherent authority to ‘intermeddle’ with the property of their minor children, which
includes legal causes of action.” Santiago, 343 A.3d at 1015 (citation omitted).

Neither party has argued nor submitted any evidence that a court approved
the waiver of W.F.’s right to pursue his claims in federal court. Nor is there any
court order appointing M.F. as guardian of W.F.’s estate. Accordingly, the forum
selection clause contained in the applications signed by W.F.’s father is
unenforceable against W.F.’s claims.

Camp Lohikan argues that, under Santiago, M.F. possessed apparent
authority or authority by estoppel to act on behalf of his spouse, H.F. (Doc. 7, Br.
in Supp. at 5). Camp Lohikan raises this argument since M.F. was the only
parent who signed W.F.’s camper applications. Camp Lohikan appears to
advance this argument in support of enforcing the forum selection clause against
the minor. That reliance is misplaced. The agency discussion in Santiago did
not concern the enforceability of a contractual provision against a non-party
minor. Rather, the court addressed apparent authority and authority by estoppel
solely in the context of whether one spouse could bind the other to an arbitration

agreement. See, e.g., Santiago, 291 A.3d at 1224.

Case 3:25-cv-00853-JKM Document14 Filed 02/20/26 Page 10 of 12

Here, H.F. has not addressed any claims against Camp Lohikan. Thus,
principles of apparent authority or authority by estoppel are irrelevant to the
issues presented in Camp Lohikan’s motions. The court therefore declines to
address Camp Lohikan’s argument that M.F. had apparent authority or authority
by estoppel to act on behalf of his spouse. The court will reserve that discussion
for another day should either parent become a plaintiff and assert claims in his or
her own right.

For these reasons, Camp Lohikan’s motion to remove this case to state
court will be denied.’

2. Leave to Amend

Camp Lohikan argues that W.F., a minor, must be represented by a
competent adult in civil proceedings. (Doc. 7, Br. in Supp. at 6) (citing FED. R.
Civ. P. 17(c)(1))). Accordingly, Camp Lohikan requests that the complaint be
dismissed or, alternatively, that the court appoint an appropriate representative to
act on behalf of W.F. in this litigation. (Id.)

W.F. agrees that he must proceed through a proper representative and

requests leave to file an amended complaint naming a competent adult as his

’ Because the court will deny Camp Lohikan’s motion on this ground, the court will not discuss
W.F.’s alternative arguments related to the unenforceability of the forum selection clause on
the basis that: (1) it is not contained in a commercial contract between business entities; (2) it
is buried in the agreement, (3) and was not a bargained-for clause.

10

Case 3:25-cv-00853-JKM Document14 Filed 02/20/26 Page 11 of 12

guardian. (Doc. 9, Br. in Opp. at 11). The court will grant that request. See
Santiago, 343 A.3d at 1002-03 (holding that a court plays an important role “in
litigation brought by a parent on behalf of a child, as it has the significant effect of
transforming the parent's role from that of a natural guardian into, in essence, a
court-approved guardian who has authority to make decisions about the minor's

estate, not merely the child's person.”); see also Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d

196, 204 (3d Cir. 2006) (“Leave to amend must generally be granted unless
equitable considerations render it otherwise unjust.”) (citation omitted).
Therefore, Camp Lohikan’s motion to dismiss will be denied. However,
Camp Lohikan’s request for appointment of a representative for the minor will be
granted, as will plaintiff's request to amend. The amended complaint shall
identify a guardian in compliance with Rule 17.
Thus, for the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Camp Lohikan’s motion to remove this case to state court, (Doc. 6), is
DENIED;
2. Camp Lohikan’s motion to dismiss, (Doc. 6), is DENIED;
3. However, Camp Lohikan’s request to appoint a representative for the minor
plaintiff in this litigation is GRANTED; and
4. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint naming a proper representative to

act on behalf of the minor in this litigation on or before March 12, 2026.

11

Case 3:25-cv-00853-JKM Document14 Filed 02/20/26 Page 12 of 12

Date:

UDGE JULIA K, MUNDEY
United States District Court

12