Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

David Matthews v. Kerzner International

October 27, 2011

DAVID MATTHEWS,
PLAINTIFF
v.
KERZNER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, ET AL., DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr.

ORDER

Currently pending in the above-captioned case is Plaintiff David Matthews' s Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) for Reconsideration of the Court's September 8, 2011 Order. (ECF No. 62.) For the following reasons, the court denies Plaintiff's Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

As explained in greater detail in this court's September 8, 2011 Order, granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, this diversity tort suit arises out of Plaintiff Matthews' s December 2009 stay at the Atlantis Resort and Hotel in the Bahamas, where he sustained injuries to his left leg and knee upon using an allegedly defective and dangerous waterslide. (Am. Compl. ¶¶14--23.) In his two-count Complaint, Plaintiff asserted claims for: (1) premises liability; and (2) negligent design, construction, maintenance, repair, supervision and/or negligent provision of first aid. (Id. ¶ 39.) Plaintiff named as Defendants:

1. Kerzner International Limited ("KIL"), a private Bahamian holding company that functions as a parent company over various subsidiary entities. (Am. Compl. ¶ 2.)

2. Kerzner International Bahamas Limited ("KIBL"), a Bahamian entity and subsidiary of KIL (Id. ¶ 3.)

3. Kerzner International Resorts, Inc. ("KIRI"), whose principal place of business is in Florida and "functions as a marketing, sales, advertising, reservation, wholesale tour service and travel business for Atlantis." (Id. ¶ 6.)

4. Island Hotel Company Limited ("IHCL"), a Bahamian entity and wholly owned subsidiary of KIL that is involved in the operation of Atlantis, the hotel and resort where Plaintiff incurred his injury. (Id. ¶ 8.)

5. Atlantis Holdings (Bahamas) Limited ("AHL"), a Bahamian corporation and a subsidiary of KIL that owns the land and buildings that are the Atlantis resort in the Bahamas. (Id. ¶ 9.)

6. A John Doe Defendant who "is an individual and/or a business entity of some form which directly, or indirectly, engineered, designed, built, fabricated, supplied, repaired, maintained, operated, services, or supervised the premises at Atlantis, including its Mayan Temple Waterslides, which includes a set of waterslides called "The Challengers", and/or directly, or through agents, provided or contracted to provide medical services to individuals injured at Atlantis while using these waterslides." (Id. ¶ 10.)

On April 6, 2011, this court issued a Case Management Conference Order in which it stayed all discovery for a period of 120 days, except in regard to matters related to jurisdiction. (ECF No. 26.) The Defendants jointly filed a Motion to Dismiss on May 12, 2011. (ECF No. 33.) The Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, forum non conveniens, insufficiency of service of process and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Id.) Matthews filed his Opposition on June 8, 2011 (ECF No. 44), and the Defendants jointly filed their Reply on June 23, 2011. (ECF No. 50.)

On September 8, 2011, this court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, finding that the court lacked specific jurisdiction over the Defendants pursuant to Ohio's long-arm statute. On September 12, 2011, Plaintiff moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) for reconsideration of this court's Order, arguing that this court overlooked facts in the record that would support a finding of general jurisdiction over each of the Defendants. Plaintiff states that, "[a]lthough Plaintiff's briefs [Docs. 43 and 53] did not specifically state that he was invoking only general jurisdiction, that basis for personal jurisdiction is clearly argued and supported in the record." On September 26, 2011, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider. (ECF No. 63.)

II. LAW AND ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.