Fisher Zucker Franchise Law Firm visit our corporate site  |   about us  |   contact us




LAW PRACTICE AREAS

Franchise & Distribution
  Contract Negotiation
  Day to Day Franchise Advice
  Franchisee Termination
  Franchise Real Estate
  Franchise Bankruptcy
  Regulatory Compliance
  International Franchising
  Mergers and Acquisitions
  Starting A Franchise Business

Trademark Registration
Business Transactions
Dispute Resolution
Training Programs

FRANCHISE SALES REFERENCES
  Compliance with Disclosure Laws
  Misrepresentations & Omisions
  Earnings Claims
  Negotiated Changes
  State Relationship Laws
  Sell Only to Qualified Candidates
  Developing a Compliance Program


Attorney Directory
Legal News
Recruitment
Site Map


Contact Us

Philadelphia, PA - 215.545.5200

Cherry Hill, NJ - 856.665.5253

Brunswick, GA - 912.264.4211

Email firm@fisherzucker.com

Visit our corporate site

Website Does Not Subject Holland Franchisee to Personal Jurisdiction in Pennsylvania

In Romero v. Holiday Inn, Utrecht, et al., the plaintiff commenced an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., and its franchisee Holiday Inn, Utrecht ("Utrecht") for personal injuries sustained during his stay in the franchisee's Holiday Inn in Utrecht, Holland. The court granted Utrecht's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that Utrecht's activities in Pennsylvania were not sufficiently continuous and systematic to satisfy due process requirements.

In Pennsylvania, a non-resident corporation subjects itself to jurisdiction if it purposely avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the Commonwealth and thereby invokes the benefit and protection of Pennsylvania's laws. The plaintiff argued that Utrecht was subject to jurisdiction in Pennsylvania because it marketed its Holland franchise in the Holiday Inn "Worldwide Directory" and because Pennsylvania residents could reserve hotel rooms by using a toll-free number and web site. Utrecht represented that it was not involved in publishing the Worldwide Directory, had no offices or sales representatives in Pennsylvania and did not advertise or solicit business in Pennsylvania. The court acknowledged that the availability of Internet reservations could be a relevant factor in determining whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is proper. The court, however, specifically discounted the availability of Internet reservations in this case by emphasizing the similarity between using the Internet and the toll-free number for making reservations. Because the Internet reservations are a more modern version of the toll-free reservations, which were also available, the court found that Holiday Inn's website did not justify the imposition personal jurisdiction.

Back to News Article Listing


F I S H E R Z U C K E R
Franchise Law / Business Lawyers

121 Avenue of the Arts, Suite 1200, Philadelphia, PA 19107
215.545.5200

402 Park Boulevard, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
856.665.5253

777 Gloucester Street, Suite 411, Brunswick, GA 31520
912.264.4211

Copyright 2004 - Fisher and Zucker