SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2269-17T3

ANTHONY DELGATTO and 

THERESA DELGATTO, his wife,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

THE GREENBRIER SPORTING 

CLUB, d/b/a THE GREENBRIER,

Defendant-Respondent,

and

PGA TOUR, INC., d/b/a PGA TOURS,

Defendant.

______________________________

Submitted January 16, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Koblitz and Mayer. 

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law

Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-10261-15.

Sekas Law Group, LLC, attorneys for appellants

(Nicholas G. Sekas and Louis M. Gerbino, on the 

briefs).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

February 6, 2019
2

A-2269-17T3

Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan, LLP, attorneys for 

respondent (John J. Leo III, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs Anthony Delgatto and Theresa Delgatto appeal from a May 9, 

2017 order dismissing their complaint against defendant Greenbrier Sporting 

Club d/b/a The Greenbrier (Greenbrier) for lack of jurisdiction. In addition, 

plaintiffs appeal from an August 2, 2017 order denying their motion for 

reconsideration.1 We affirm.

Plaintiffs learned of Greenbrier's golf course and hotel, located in West 

Virginia, while watching the Golf Channel.

2

 Plaintiffs also saw advertisements 

for Greenbrier during golf events broadcast on national network television 

stations, and in nationally circulated golf magazines. Greenbrier does not 

advertise on local New Jersey television stations or in local New Jersey 

magazines. 

Friends who had stayed at Greenbrier suggested plaintiffs would enjoy the 

resort and its amenities. Theresa Delgatto visited Greenbrier's website to obtain 

 

1

 On appeal, plaintiffs fail to address the denial of their reconsideration motion. 

Issues not briefed on appeal are deemed waived. Gormley v. Wood-El, 218 N.J. 

72, 95 n.8 (2014).

2

 The Golf Channel is a national cable television channel broadcasting golf 

related programming throughout the country. 
3

A-2269-17T3

hotel information. She then contacted American Express Travel Services to 

reserve a room at Greenbrier. Plaintiffs made dinner arrangements through 

Greenbrier's website and telephoned Greenbrier's golf course to schedule teetimes. 

While staying at Greenbrier in September 2014, Anthony Delgatto slipped 

and fell on the golf course, suffering significant injuries. He was treated for his

injuries in New Jersey and New York City. 

Plaintiffs filed personal injury and per quod claims against Greenbrier in 

November 2015. Greenbrier filed an answer and asserted affirmative defenses, 

including lack of jurisdiction.

In 2016, Greenbrier filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. 

Plaintiffs opposed the motion and filed a cross-motion seeking jurisdictional 

discovery. The court denied Greenbrier's motion to dismiss and granted 

plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery on the issue of jurisdiction. Jurisdictional 

discovery was to be completed by the end of June 2016. However, the parties 

agreed to extend the time for discovery to August 5, 2016. Greenbrier did not 

produce discovery until December 7, 2016.

3

 By that date, the statute of 

 

3

 Greenbrier was unable to provide discovery earlier due to a significant flood 

event at its property.
4

A-2269-17T3

limitations for filing a personal injury action in West Virginia expired. See W. 

Va. Code. § 55-2-12(b).

In its discovery responses, Greenbrier asserted it had no direct 

advertisements on any New Jersey television stations or in any New Jersey 

magazines. Greenbrier stated its advertisements were limited to nationally 

televised media sources, national golf magazines, and social media pages. 

Greenbrier claimed its only direct contact with New Jersey was through letters 

and e-mails sent to New Jersey residents who previously stayed at Greenbrier. 

In January 2017, Greenbrier renewed its motion to dismiss for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

On May 9, 2017, the trial court granted Greenbrier's motion to dismiss

based on lack of jurisdiction. The judge found Greenbrier did not target any 

activities directed to plaintiffs in New Jersey. Greenbrier's television and 

magazine advertising was disseminated nationally. Any mailing by Greenbrier 

to New Jersey residents was sent only to individuals who previously stayed at 

the hotel. Plaintiffs admitted they never received a direct mailing from 

Greenbrier. 

The judge found Greenbrier's discovery delay did not support a finding 

that New Jersey had jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims arising from an accident 
5

A-2269-17T3

in West Virginia. Absent a provision for tolling the statute of limitations in 

West Virginia, the judge acknowledged "plaintiffs may be without a cause of 

action." The judge suggested plaintiffs raise Greenbrier's discovery delay to a

court in West Virginia as a basis for tolling that state's statute of limitations. 

In their May 26, 2017 motion for reconsideration, plaintiffs argued

general jurisdiction, rather than specific jurisdiction, permitted their claims 

against Greenbrier in New Jersey. Even with the change in plaintiffs' legal 

position, the judge concluded general jurisdiction required systematic and 

continuous activity in New Jersey and such activity was not shown by plaintiffs. 

Plaintiffs' counsel conceded he did not "have a general jurisdiction argument . . .

for the [c]ourt." 

On reconsideration, the judge asked plaintiffs to identify outstanding

discovery needed to proceed with a specific jurisdiction claim against 

Greenbrier. Plaintiffs were unable to articulate additional discovery necessary 

to support specific jurisdiction in this case. 

In denying reconsideration, the judge emphasized plaintiffs were aware 

how they came to reserve a room at Greenbrier and no additional discovery from 

Greenbrier was needed. The judge repeated her inquiry, asking what discovery 

"would [have] help[ed] [plaintiffs'] arguments on specific jurisdiction because 
6

A-2269-17T3

[plaintiffs' counsel] conceded that you don't have general jurisdiction." 

Plaintiffs remained unable to identify such discovery.

On appeal, plaintiffs argue the trial court erred because: (1) the judge 

ignored Greenbrier's "copious . . . connections" to New Jersey; (2) the judge 

dismissed the case prior to developing a complete record; and (3) the judge 

failed to consider that dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint foreclosed any 

opportunity to pursue a cause of action in another forum. 

When considering a motion to dismiss a complaint based on lack of 

jurisdiction, reviewing courts "examine[] whether the trial court's factual 

findings are 'supported by substantial, credible evidence' in the record." Patel 

v. Karnavati Am., LLC, 437 N.J. Super. 415, 423 (App. Div. 2014) (quoting 

Mastondrea v. Occidental Hotels Mgmt., S.A., 391 N.J. Super. 261, 268 (App. 

Div. 2007)). Whether the facts support the exercise of jurisdiction is a question 

of law and is reviewed de novo. Mastondrea, 391 N.J. Super. at 268. A plaintiff 

bears the burden to prove jurisdiction. Dutch Run–Mays Draft, LLC v. Wolf 

Block, LLP, 450 N.J. Super. 590, 598 (App. Div. 2017), certif. denied, 231 N.J. 

176 (2017). 

A defendant "must have sufficient contact with the forum state 'to make 

it reasonable and just, according to our traditional conception of fair play and 
7

A-2269-17T3

substantial justice,'" to exercise jurisdiction. Rippon v. Smigel, 449 N.J. Super. 

344, 360 (App. Div. 2017) (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 

320 (1945)). Jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant exists in two forms: 

specific and general. Jacobs v. Walt Disney World, Co., 309 N.J. Super. 443, 

452 (App. Div. 1998). Here, plaintiffs failed to establish either specific or 

general jurisdiction to proceed with their claims against Greenbrier in New 

Jersey.

New Jersey may exercise specific jurisdiction "over a defendant who has 

'minimum contacts' with the state" when "the cause of action arises directly out 

of a defendant's contacts with [New Jersey]." Rippon, 449 N.J. Super. at 359 

(quoting Lebel v. Everglades Marina, Inc., 115 N.J. 317, 323 (1989)). 

Minimum contacts "focus on 'the relationship among the defendant, the forum, 

and the litigation.'" Lebel, 115 N.J. at 323 (quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 

186, 204 (1977)). "[M]inimum contacts" are "satisfied so long as the contacts 

resulted from the defendant's purposeful conduct and not the unilateral activities 

of the plaintiff." Ibid. (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 

444 U.S. 286, 297–98 (1980)).

"[W]hen the defendant is not present in the forum state, 'it is essential that 

there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails [itself] of the 
8

A-2269-17T3

privilege of conducting activities within [New Jersey], thus invoking the benefit 

and protection of its laws.'" Baanyan Software Servs., Inc. v. Kuncha, 433 N.J.

Super. 466, 475 (App. Div. 2013) (quoting Waste Mgmt. Inc. v. Admiral Ins. 

Co., 138 N.J. 106, 120 (1994)). The defendant must "purposefully avail[] itself 

of the privilege of conducting activities" in New Jersey such that the defendant 

can reasonably anticipate being sued in this State. Dutch Run, 450 N.J. Super. 

at 599 (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985)). 

Here, Greenbrier did not specifically target plaintiffs. Greenbrier 

advertised only on national television and in national magazines. Greenbrier 

did not solicit New Jersey residents through local golf clubs or other local golf 

organizations. The solicitations and e-mails sent by Greenbrier to New Jersey 

residents were directed to those individuals who previously stayed at the hotel. 

Greenbrier never sent e-mails or other solicitations to plaintiffs. 

Nor was logging onto Greenbrier's website sufficient to confer

jurisdiction. See Lebel, 115 N.J. at 323. Plaintiffs did not reserve a hotel room 

through Greenbrier's website. Thus, Greenbrier did not "purposefully avail[] 

itself of the privilege of conducting activities" in New Jersey to reasonably 

anticipate being sued in this State. 
9

A-2269-17T3

Plaintiffs were also unable to establish general jurisdiction to proceed 

against Greenbrier in New Jersey. Under general jurisdiction, a defendant may 

be sued for "virtually any claim, even if unrelated to the defendant's contacts 

with the forum" provided "the defendant's activities in [New Jersey] can be 

characterized as 'continuous and systematic' contacts." Lebel, 115 N.J. at 323

(quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416

(1984)). 

For general jurisdiction to be applicable, a defendant's activities must be 

"so 'continuous and systematic' as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum 

State." FDASmart, Inc. v. Dishman Pharm. and Chems. Ltd., 448 N.J. Super. 

195, 202 (App. Div. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Daimler AG v. 

Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 128 (2014)). A defendant's "principal place of business 

and place of incorporation" generally indicates where that defendant is "at 

home" and thus subject to general jurisdiction. Ibid. Establishing general 

jurisdiction requires "extensive contacts between a defendant and a forum." Id.

at 202–03 (quoting Mische v. Bracey's Supermarket, 420 N.J. Super. 487, 492 

(App. Div. 2011)).

In this case, Greenbrier has little to no contact with New Jersey generally. 

Greenbrier is incorporated in West Virginia. Greenbrier's facilities are located 
10 A-2269-17T3

in West Virginia. The motion judge thoroughly analyzed plaintiffs' proffered 

evidence and found Greenbrier lacked any systematic and continuous contacts 

with New Jersey to establish general jurisdiction. 

We next consider plaintiffs' arguments that the judge erred by not allowing 

further discovery to establish jurisdiction and Greenbrier's delay in providing 

discovery caused them to suffer prejudice. Despite being given ample 

opportunity, plaintiffs failed to articulate additional discovery that might have 

established jurisdiction to proceed with their claims against Greenbrier in New 

Jersey. When a party asserts incomplete discovery as a defense to dismissal 

based on lack of jurisdiction, the party "must establish that there is a likelihood

that further discovery would supply the necessary information" with "some 

degree of particularity." J. Josephson, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Ins. Co., 293 N.J.

Super. 170, 204 (App. Div. 1996).

In its discovery responses, Greenbrier certified it did not have any 

advertising agreements, contracts, partnerships, or targeted campaigns in New 

Jersey. On reconsideration, plaintiffs were unable to explain how additional 

discovery would establish jurisdiction over their claims in New Jersey. 

We next review plaintiffs' argument that the judge erred in dismissing the

action because they were left without a forum as a result of the expiration of the 
11 A-2269-17T3

statute of limitations in West Virginia. While Greenbrier provided discovery 

after the expiration of West Virginia's statute of limitations for a personal injury 

action, nothing precluded plaintiffs from filing suit in West Virginia. Plaintiffs 

were aware Greenbrier asserted lack of jurisdiction to pursue claims in New 

Jersey based on Greenbrier's original motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs also knew 

Greenbrier was likely to renew its motion after the exchange of court-ordered 

jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiffs could have filed an action in West Virginia 

because Greenbrier is incorporated in West Virginia, the accident occurred in 

West Virginia, and West Virginia has similar tort remedies to New Jersey. See

W. Va. Code. § 55-2-12(b). The judge, while recognizing the unfortunate 

situation resulting from dismissal of the New Jersey matter, properly concluded 

Greenbrier's delay in providing discovery did not confer jurisdiction in New 

Jersey. 

Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied the judge's findings of fact 

are supported by substantial and credible evidence. We are satisfied de novo 

that those facts do not establish jurisdiction in New Jersey. The judge accorded 

plaintiffs more than ample opportunity to establish New Jersey had either 

general or specific jurisdiction to proceed with their claims against Greenbrier. 

Affirmed.