NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 16-3593

____________

MICHAEL BARTH; MAUREEN BARTH, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HUSBAND AND WIFE,

 Appellants 

v.

WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC.; 

THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(E.D. Pa. No. 2-16-cv-02140)

District Judge: Honorable Robert F. Kelly

____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

September 7, 2017

Before: CHAGARES, JORDAN, and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: September 8, 2017)

____________

OPINION*

____________

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does 

not constitute binding precedent.
2

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

Michael and Maureen Barth appeal an order of the District Court dismissing their 

complaint against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. and The Walt Disney 

Company for lack of personal jurisdiction. We will affirm. 

I

Michael Barth alleged that he was bitten by a copperhead snake at the Walt Disney 

World Resort in Florida. He and his wife Maureen sued in the Court of Common Pleas of 

Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, alleging negligence. After removing the case to the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1441 and 1446, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. The District Court granted the 

motion and the Barths appealed. 

II1

The Barths claim that Defendants are amenable to general personal jurisdiction in 

Pennsylvania. To establish that type of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff must show that

the defendant’s connections to the forum state are “so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to 

 

1 The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Our 

jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s findings of fact 

for clear error and its determination that it lacks personal jurisdiction de novo. Pennzoil 

Prods. Co. v. Colelli & Assocs., Inc., 149 F.3d 197, 200 (3d Cir. 1998). The Barths bear 

the burden to “prove by affidavits or other competent evidence that jurisdiction is 

proper.” Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, Inc., 566 F.3d 324, 330 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation 

and alteration omitted). 
3

render [the corporation] essentially at home in the forum State.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires 

Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011) (citing Int’l Shoe Co. v.

Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 317 (1945)). A corporation is “at home” in the State of its 

“place of incorporation and principal place of business.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. 

Ct. 746, 760 (2014). Also, in “exceptional case[s], . . . a corporation’s operations in a 

[different] forum . . . may be so substantial and of such a nature as to render the 

corporation at home in that State.” Id. at 761 n.19 (citation omitted). 

The District Court was right to hold that the Barths failed to establish that either 

Defendant was at home in Pennsylvania. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Inc. is a Florida 

corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. The Walt Disney Company is a 

Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California. Because neither 

Defendant was incorporated or had its principal place of business in Pennsylvania, the 

Barths were unable to establish either of the paradigmatic bases for personal jurisdiction 

under Goodyear and Daimler AG. Nor did the Barths establish that this was an 

“exceptional” case such that the place of incorporation/principal place of business rule 

should be disregarded. The Barths argued that companies affiliated with Defendants did 

substantial business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but those facts were 

unavailing to the Barths because those contacts could not be imputed to Defendants. 

Accordingly, the District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendants, and, based 

on this record, we agree with the District Court that jurisdictional discovery would have 

been futile. 
4

* * *

For the reasons stated, we will affirm the order of the District Court.