McElroy v. TRT Holdings, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Grace McElroy
v. Civil No. 19-cv-844-JD
Opinion No. 2020 DNH 020
TRT Holdings, Inc., et al.
O R D E R
Grace McElroy brought this action in state court that arose
from an accident at the Mount Washington Hotel in which she was
hit by a Mount Washington Hotel shuttle van. The defendants
removed the case to this court. Defendant TRT Holdings, Inc.
moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. McElroy,
who is represented by counsel, did not file a response.
Standard of Review
To avoid dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), the
plaintiff bears the burden of showing that jurisdiction exists.
Cossart v. United Excel Corp., 804 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2015).
When no hearing is held on the motion, the court uses the prima
facie standard to determine whether the plaintiff has carried
her burden. A. Corp. v. All Am. Plumbing, Inc., 812 F.3d 54, 58
(1st Cir. 2016). Under the prima facie standard, the court
Case 1:19-cv-00844-JD Document 14 Filed 02/13/20 Page 1 of 4

2
accepts the plaintiff’s properly supported evidentiary proffers
as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. PREP Tours Inc. v. Am. Youth Soccer Org., 913 F.3d
11, 16 (1st Cir. 2019).
Discussion
In support of its motion to dismiss, TRT Holdings asserts
that it is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business in Texas. Omni Hotels Management Corporation, another
defendant in this case, is a subsidiary of TRT Holdings. TRT
Holdings represents that it does not do business in New
Hampshire, does not own or maintain property in New Hampshire,
and does not have employees or an agent in New Hampshire. Based
on those circumstances, TRT Holdings contends that this court
lacks personal jurisdiction over it. As is noted above, McElroy
did not file a response.
This court’s personal jurisdiction over a nonresident
defendant in a diversity case is based on New Hampshire’s long-
arm statute and must also comply with the requirements of due
process. Harlow v. Children’s Hosp., 432 F.3d 50, 57 (1st Cir.
2005). Because New Hampshire’s long-arm statute, RSA 510:4,
allows courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident
defendants to the extent allowed by due process, the court need
Case 1:19-cv-00844-JD Document 14 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 4

3
only consider the due process limits on personal jurisdiction.
Phillips Exeter Acad. V. Howard Phillips Fund, 196 F.3d 284, 287
(1st Cir. 1999). Due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments requires that a defendant have “certain minimum
contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the
suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S.
310, 316 (1945); accord Plixer Int’l, Inc. v. Scrutinizer GmbH,
905 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2018).
Due process may be satisfied by showing general personal
jurisdiction or specific personal jurisdiction. Baskin-Robbins
Franchising LLC v. Alpenrose Dairy, Inc., 825 F.3d 28, 35 (1st
Cir. 2016). General jurisdiction exists when the defendant has
“continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state, but
the particular cause of action may be unrelated to those
contacts.” Bluetarp Fin., Inc. v. Matrix Constr. Co., Inc., 709
F.3d 72, 79 (1st Cir. 2013). “In order for a court to exercise
specific jurisdiction over a claim, there must be an affiliation
between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally,
an activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum
State.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Calif.,
137 S. Ct. 1773, 1781 (2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In this case, McElroy’s lack of response to the motion to
Case 1:19-cv-00844-JD Document 14 Filed 02/13/20 Page 3 of 4

4
dismiss preordains the result. She bears the burden of showing
that TRT Holdings has had sufficient minimum contacts with New
Hampshire to support personal jurisdiction. She has not done
so. Therefore, in the absence of personal jurisdiction, TRT
Holdings must be dismissed from the case.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, TRT Holdings’s motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction (document no. 10) is granted.
TRT Holdings is dismissed from the case for lack of
personal jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.
______________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
February 13, 2020
cc: Counsel of Record.
Case 1:19-cv-00844-JD Document 14 Filed 02/13/20 Page 4 of 4