Online Bookings, Specific Jurisdiction, and Venue in a Ski Rental Injury Case
Summit Ridge Rentals, LLC operates one ski-rental shop in Colorado. Its members are Colorado citizens. It has no office, employee, property, or agent in State A. Its website allows customers to reserve equipment online, but the site does not specifically target State A. Over three years, 40 State A residents booked rentals from the site, generating about $18,000, roughly 1% of Summit Ridge's revenue. Plaintiff Dana, a State A citizen, reserved skis from her home in State A, traveled to Colorado, signed a rental agreement and waiver in Colorado, and was injured on a Colorado slope when a binding released prematurely. Dana sues Summit Ridge in federal court in State A for $85,000. Summit Ridge moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) and objects to venue. Dana argues the online bookings and her injury from a Colorado rental establish jurisdiction in State A.
1. May the federal court in State A exercise general or specific personal jurisdiction over Summit Ridge?
Read the worked answer
No general jurisdiction. An LLC is at home where it is organized and where it has its principal place of business; Summit Ridge is a Colorado company with no substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts in State A. Specific jurisdiction also fails. The claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant's forum contacts. Summit Ridge's website is accessible everywhere, but accessibility alone is not purposeful availment. Forty bookings over three years, about 1% of revenue, are not a deliberate targeting of State A; there is no advertising, agent, or special design for that market. More important, Dana's claim arises from a Colorado rental and a Colorado injury, not from the online reservation. The forum booking is a preliminary contact, not the source of the duty breached. Under these facts, State A cannot exercise specific jurisdiction.
2. If personal jurisdiction is lacking, is venue proper in State A, and what should the court do?
Read the worked answer
Venue is improper. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue lies where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction if no other district is proper. Summit Ridge resides in Colorado; the rental, waiver, and injury occurred in Colorado. Because the District of State A cannot exercise personal jurisdiction, it also cannot be a proper venue under the third branch. The court may dismiss or, in the interest of justice, transfer the case to the District of Colorado under § 1406(a). Transfer is often preferred over dismissal because it avoids a limitations trap. A § 1404(a) transfer would require proper venue and jurisdiction in State A, which Dana lacks.