AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff, a New Mexico resident, was injured while using exercise equipment at a hotel operated by the Defendant, a New York corporation, in Amarillo, Texas. The hotel does business under the "Holiday Inn" brand through a franchise agreement with Intercontinental Hotels Group (IHG). The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in Valencia County, New Mexico, seeking damages for her injuries (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Valencia County, William A. Sanchez, District Judge: Granted Defendant AMTX Hotel Corporation's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the district court erred in finding insufficient contacts with New Mexico to establish jurisdiction. Contended that Defendant's national advertising and marketing activities, as well as her membership in IHG’s Priority Club, should establish sufficient contacts with New Mexico through theories of agency or apparent agency (paras 1, 7).
• Defendant: Argued for dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting no direct contacts with New Mexico such as facilities, hotels, offices, employees, advertising, or business operations within the state. Also, engaged in non-jurisdictional discovery without waiving its jurisdictional defense (paras 3, 7, 14).

Legal Issues

• Whether the national advertising of the "Holiday Inn" brand by IHG can establish personal jurisdiction in New Mexico over the nonresident franchisee Defendant.
• Whether the Defendant waived its jurisdictional defense by engaging in non-jurisdictional discovery (paras 5, 14).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Defendant (para 18).

Reasons

• JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge (RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the franchisor-franchisee relationship and national advertising by IHG do not establish sufficient contacts with New Mexico to warrant personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. It emphasized that a direct control or significant relationship between the Defendant and the advertising activities within New Mexico must be demonstrated to impute such contacts, which was not the case here (paras 7-10).
  The Court also concluded that national advertisements alone, without targeting or directing business to a specific geographic area within the forum state, cannot constitute the minimum contacts necessary for establishing personal jurisdiction under due process principles (paras 11-13).
  Regarding the waiver of the jurisdictional defense, the Court determined that the Defendant did not waive this defense by engaging in discovery or by seeking certain relief in its answer to the complaint. The Court differentiated between defensive actions and actions seeking affirmative relief, noting that the Defendant's actions were defensive and did not seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the court substantively (paras 14-17).