Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Dorothy M. Fordyce, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Round Hill Developments, Ltd., D/b/a Round Hill Hotel Ofmontego Bay, Jamaica, Defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 585 F.2d 30
Argued Sept. 22, 1978.Decided Oct. 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.
Before MOORE and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judges, and KNAPP, District Judge.*
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. (2d Cir. 1967) 385 F.2d 116 is 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.
We therefore affirm the District Court's dismissal of the complaint for substantially the reasons set forth in Judge Haight's opinion below.