IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JUANITA ANDERSON :

: CIVIL ACTION 

Plaintiff, :

: No. 05-4115

v. :

:

BALLY’S PARK PLACE, INC. :

Individually and BALLY’S PARK :

PLACE d/b/a :

BALLY’S ATLANTIC CITY, :

:

Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM

Presently pending is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction,

and Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition thereto. For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s Motion

will be denied.

Facts and Procedural History

Plaintiff, a Pennsylvania resident, was injured when she fell inside Bally’s Atlantic City

Casino on January 16, 2004. Plaintiff filed suit in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on

June 27, 2005. On August 2, 2005 Defendant filed notice of removal with this Court asserting

diversity jurisdiction. 

Currently, Defendant asserts that this Court does not have jurisdiction because the

incident from which this claim arose occurred in New Jersey, and the Defendant does not have

sufficient contact with Pennsylvania to enable a Pennsylvania Court to sustain personal

jurisdiction. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s contacts with the state of Pennsylvania are

sufficient enough to subject Defendant to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.

Case 2:05-cv-04115-CMR Document 33 Filed 11/13/06 Page 1 of 3
2

Discussion

When a defendant objects to personal jurisdiction, plaintiff bears the burden of coming

forward with a set of facts sufficient to create a prima facie case of jurisdiction. See, Mellon

Banks (East) PSFS v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1223 (3d Cir. 1992). A plaintiff’s allegations that

defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum to warrant a court’s exercise of personal

jurisdiction over the defendant must be supported with affidavits, documents, or other evidence,

because a Rule 12(b)(2) motion "requires resolution of factual issues outside the pleadings." 

Time Share Vacation Club v. Atlantic Resorts, Ltd., 735 F.2d 61, 67 n.9 (3d Cir. 1997).

Federal district courts are permitted to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident of

the state in which the court sits to the extent authorized by the law of the state. Provident

National Bank v. California Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 819 F.2d 434, 437 (3d Cir. 1987). Under

Pennsylvania law, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction to the fullest extent allowed by the

United States Constitution. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§5308, 5322(b). The Supreme Court has

held that jurisdiction is proper when a defendant purposefully establishes "minimum contacts" in

the forum state, by deliberately engaging in significant activities, or by creating continuing

obligations such that he has "availed himself of the privilege of conducting business there." 

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-476, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2184-85 (1985).

General in personam jurisdiction is implicated when a plaintiff’s cause of action does not

arise from the defendant’s business activities in the forum state. Helicopteros Nacionales de

Colombia S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984). In order to establish general personal

jurisdiction, a plaintiff must show that the defendant carried on a continuous and systematic part

of their general business within Pennsylvania. Gehling v. St. Geroge’s School of Medicine, Ltd.,

Case 2:05-cv-04115-CMR Document 33 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 3
3

773 F.2d 539, 541 (3d Cir. 1985). 

In this case, Plaintiff has sustained its burden of proof by showing that Defendant Bally’s

carried on a continuous and systematic portion of its business in Pennsylvania. For example,

Plaintiff produced evidence that Defendant Bally’s mails out millions of offers containing

coupons for free slot coins to Pennsylvania residents each year and has advertised in various

Pennsylvania newspapers and magazines since 2004. Therefore, general personal jurisdiction

over Defendant Bally’s has been established. Because personal jurisdiction is established, venue

is proper in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. §1391. As such, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

will be denied. An appropriate order follows.

Case 2:05-cv-04115-CMR Document 33 Filed 11/13/06 Page 3 of 3