HARRISBURG – The Superior Court of Pennsylvania threw out the appeal of a woman who claimed to be the victim of theft for more than $50,000 in valuables at a New York-based hotel, on the grounds that her appeal brief was deficient.
On June 22, Superior Court judges Carolyn H. Nichols, Daniel D. McCaffery and Kate Ford Elliott rejected the appeal of April Ploeger, in her litigation against Tryp by Wyndham.
Ploeger claimed that on Dec. 4, 2016, she checked into the Tryp by Wyndham Hotel located at 345 West 35th Street in New York City. During her stay, Ploeger claimed that jewelry and personal items in the amount of $50,000 were stolen from a safe in her hotel room.
Ploeger filed a complaint in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas to recover damages. Tryp filed preliminary objections to the complaint, which argued jurisdiction was not proper in Pennsylvania. On July 8, 2019, the court sustained Tryp’s preliminary objections, finding Ploeger failed to establish the court had general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction over Tryp.
Ploeger appealed to the Superior Court, specifically on the issue of whether or not the trial court committed reversible error in finding that it did not have in personam jurisdiction over the corporate defendant, Tryp.
Tryp pointed out that Ploeger’s argument consisted of “one lone paragraph devoid of a single citation to the record or any case law,” and although Tryp “is a franchisee of Wyndham Worldwide Hotels…each hotel is individually owned” and in this particular case, Tryp is owned by Eros Management and Realty LLC, a limited liability company incorporated in New York.
“Here, appellant’s brief does not contain a summary of the argument and does not set forth references to the record. Furthermore, her entire argument consists of three sentences, including a conclusory statement that Tryp continuously conducts business in Pennsylvania, thus vesting jurisdiction and venue in Philadelphia’s courts,” McCaffery said.
“Nevertheless, her sole discussion there is likewise vague as she baldly alleges that while the cause of the harm occurred in New York, its effects still continue in Philadelphia. We emphasize appellant fails to address, with any discussion of authority, the trial court’s finding that she failed to establish general or specific jurisdiction. Because her brief and argument are deficient, appellant’s claim is waived.”
According to McCaffery, the trial court found Ploeger failed to establish the court had general jurisdiction over Tryp, where her complaint is premised on a claim that Tryp is a subsidiary of Wyndham Hotels, which does business in Pennsylvania.
“The court reasoned that Wyndham Hotels was not named as a party, and in any event, Tryp has pleaded it is owned by Eros Management and Realty LLC, which is likewise not a party to this suit. Furthermore, the court found it was undisputed that Tryp is not registered to do business in, nor provides any services in, Pennsylvania; the alleged incident occurred in New York; and thus there was insufficient ‘evidence of ‘systemic and continuous’ carrying on of business within Pennsylvania,” McCaffery said.
“The trial court also found appellant failed to establish it had specific jurisdiction over Tryp. The trial court concluded appellant ‘has not provided any specific evidence that…Tryp conducted business in Pennsylvania so as to ‘purposefully avail’ [itself] of conducting business in this state.’ Appellant does not refute any of the court’s discussion.”
Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 2600 EDA 2019
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 181103039
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com