![]() |
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 PennsylvaniaIn 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. |
| |