Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Dorothy M. Fordyce v. Round Hill Developments, Ltd., D/B/A Round Hill Hotel of Montego Bay, Jamaica

585 F.2d 30

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1978-10-13
Topic
real-estate

PER CURIAM: In this diversity personal injury case we must decide whether the defendant, a hotel situated in Jamaica, has subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the New York courts. Plaintiff’s only substantial claim in this regard is that defendant’s contract with Raymond & Whitcomb Co., an independent travel agent, is a sufficient contact to confer jurisdiction. Examination of the pertinent documents disclose that Raymond and Whitcomb is in no real sense defendant’s agent but rather an independent contractor, engaged — at its own risk and expense — in leasing hotel rooms from defendant in order to complete its own annual Thanksgiving tour to Jamaica. Our decision in Gelfand. v. Tanner Motor Courts, Ltd.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Dorothy M. Fordyce v. Round Hill Developments, Ltd., D/B/A Round Hill Hotel of Montego Bay, Jamaica. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions
FORDYCE v. ROUND HILL DEVELOPMENTS, LTD.,585 F.2d 30(2nd Cir. 1978)
DOROTHY M. FORDYCE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ROUND HILL DEVELOPMENTS, LTD.,
D/B/A ROUND HILL HOTEL OF MONTEGO BAY, JAMAICA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 25, Docket 78-7166.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued September 22, 1978.
Decided October 13, 1978.
James E. Beasley, Philadelphia, Pa., and Lester H. Chase, Glen Cove, N.Y., for plaintiff-appellant.

Mary Ann D'Amato, New York City (Mendes Mount, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Before MOORE and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judges, and KNAPP, District Judge.fn*
PER CURIAM:
[1] In this diversity personal injury case we must decide whether the defendant, a hotel situated in Jamaica, has subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the New York courts.

[2] Plaintiff's only substantial claim in this regard is that defendant's contract with Raymond Whitcomb Co., an independent travel agent, is a sufficient contract to confer jurisdiction. Examination of the pertinent documents disclose that Raymond and Whitcomb is in no real sense defendant's agent but rather an independent contractor, engaged — at its own risk and expense — in leasing hotel rooms from defendant in order to complete its own annual Thanksgiving tour to Jamaica.

[3] Our decision inGelfand v. Tanner Motor Courts, Ltd.(2d Cir. 1967)385 F.2d 116is inapposite. There the New York based travel organization was truly an agent for its out of state principal, binding it to honor individual reservations, and retaining only a commission out of the monies collected on its behalf.

[4] We therefore affirm the District Court's dismissal of the complaint for substantially the reasons set forth in Judge Haight's opinion below.Page 31
  1. Of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. ↩