SCRANTON – The case brought by the estate of a man who suffered a fatal fall from a chairlift at the Blue Mountain Resort has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
According to the litigation, on Jan. 1, 2019, Connor Golembiewski of Flemington, N.J. visited the Blue Mountain Resort in Palmerton and fell from a chairlift, sustaining fatal injuries. In 11 separate counts, Golembiewski’s parents and estate charged the resort with various negligence forms of negligence that led to their son’s death in a lawsuit filed in a New Jersey federal court.
In response, the resort moved to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, or alternatively, to dismiss the matter for lack of jurisdiction or for improper venue.
U.S. District Court Judge Michael A. Shipp turned to the defendants’ jurisdictional arguments, the first of which is that the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey lacked personal jurisdiction over Blue Mountain Resort.
“The Court must first determine whether defendant purposefully directed its activities at New Jersey. Plaintiffs argue that this element is met because defendant ‘not only advertised its business in New Jersey, but also has an interactive website on which lift tickets, lessons, rentals and tickets to events can be purchased by New Jersey residents,” Shipp said.
“Taking plaintiffs’ allegations as true and construing all factual disputes in plaintiffs’ favor, the Court finds that defendant has purposefully directed activities at New Jersey by advertising to New Jersey residents and by operating a commercial website used by New Jersey residents.”
The resort disagreed, having argued that any contact it has with New Jersey “does not have a sufficient causal connection to the claims of plaintiffs.” However, Shipp did not find specific jurisdiction applied to the defendant.
“Here, there is an insufficient causal connection between defendant’s activities directed at New Jersey and plaintiff’s claims to support personal jurisdiction over defendant. Defendant directs activities at New Jersey by advertising or seeking the commerce of New Jersey residents on its website. Plaintiffs, however, do not allege that they received any advertisements or used defendant’s interactive website,” Shipp said.
“Even if Golembiewski interacted with defendant’s advertisements or website and alleged those activities were a but-for cause of Golembiewski attending the resort, those interactions would likely lack a causal connection to plaintiffs’ claims. This matter does not relate to defendant’s advertising practices or sales of its products and services, but the alleged negligence defendant and its agents at its resort in Pennsylvania…the Court finds that this litigation is not sufficiently related to defendant’s activities directed at New Jersey to confer specific jurisdiction over defendant.”
As it was determined that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant and venue was shown to be improper, it was then the Court’s decision to either transfer the case or dismiss it. The Court chose the former
“Defendant acknowledges that this action originally could have been filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and that venue and personal jurisdiction would be proper there, and the Court agrees. The Court, accordingly, shall transfer this matter to the Middle District of Pennsylvania,” Shipp stated.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:20-cv-01121
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey case 3:19-cv-18096
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com