IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LENA MELARAGNI and : Case No. 4:14-CV-1815

CHARLES MELARAGNI, :

:

Plaintiffs, : (Judge Brann)

:

v. :

:

SANDALS RESORTS :

INTERNATIONAL, :

d/b/a/ Sandals Montego Bay, :

UNIQUE VACATIONS, Ltd., :

UNIQUE VACATIONS, INC. :

:

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM OPINION

December 8, 2015

I. BACKGROUND

When couple plans a vacation to paradise, they certainly do not contemplate

an injury to one spouse. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what happened to Plaintiffs,

Lena and Charles Melaragni.1

 Mrs. Melaragni slipped on water on the floor of her

hotel room, fell, and suffered physical injury due to the alleged negligence of

1

Hereinafter, collectively “the Melaragnis.” 

1

Case 4:14-cv-01815-MWB Document 55 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 10
Defendant Sandals Resorts International2

 at its Montego Bay, Jamaica location. 

The Melaragnis have brought suit against Sandals and its booking agents, Unique

Vacations Ltd. and Unique Vacations, Inc. Unfortunately for the Melaragnis, they

have not set forth enough evidence to convince this Court sitting in the Middle

District of Pennsylvania that it has personal jurisdiction over the named

Defendants. Consequently, I will dismiss the action. 

II. DISCUSSION 

In October 2012, the Melaragnis purchased a vacation package through the

Unique Vacations defendants to the Sandals resort in Jamaica.3

 The Melaragnis

arrived at the Montego Bay resort on October 28, 2012. After checking in to their

room, Mrs. Melaragni noticed that the balcony french doors were open and,

simultaneously, the air conditioner was running. She walked to close the door and

slipped and fell on water on the floor. Allegedly, the water was from condensation

caused by the warm air from the open door combined with cool air from the air

conditioner. 

Mrs. Melaragni lost her front tooth in the fall, and allegedly suffered a

concussion, anterior nasal spine fracture, lung contusions, avulsion of the right

2

Hereinafter “Sandals.”

3

At the motion to dismiss stage, the alleged facts are all taken in the light most favorable

to Plaintiffs. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993). 

2

Case 4:14-cv-01815-MWB Document 55 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 10
upper central incisor with nondisplaced fracture, loosening of the right lateral and

left central incisors, rib fracture, and left paracentral disc herniation at C4-5 with

spinal stenosis. 

The Melaragnis retained counsel, who commenced the action by filing a

complaint in federal district court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania on

September 17, 2014.4

 Subsequently, Sandals filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure

to State a claim and for Lack of Jurisdiction5

 and a Motion to Dismiss for Forum

Non Conveniens.

6

 Unique Vacations, Ltd., also filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack

of Jurisdiction.7

 Unique Vacations, Inc. has not responded to the complaint,

counsel for Unique Vacations, Ltd. asserts that Unique Vacations, Inc. has not been

served, and there is no documentation on the docket, as required by Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4, to evince effectuated service. 

The Court held oral argument on April 30, 2015, after which I allowed the

opportunity for jurisdictional discovery and further briefing. On November 23,

2015, the Melaragnis’ declined the opportunity to file a supplemental brief.

Accordingly, the matter is ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the

4

ECF No. 1. 

5

ECF No. 5. 

6

ECF No. 18. 

7

ECF No. 26. 

3

Case 4:14-cv-01815-MWB Document 55 Filed 12/08/15 Page 3 of 10
motions to dismiss will be granted. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a defendant may file a

motion to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

Such a motion "tests the legal sufficiency of a pleading."8

 "Rule 12(b)(6)

authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis of a dispositive issue of law."9

This is true of any claim "without regard to whether it is based on an outlandish

legal theory or on a close but ultimately unavailing one."10

"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual

matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"11 "A

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged."12 "Asking for plausible grounds . . . does not impose a

probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact to

8

In re Hydrogen Peroxide Litigation, 552 F.3d 305, 316 n.15 (3d Cir. 2008) (Scirica,

C.J.) (quoting Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc., 249 F.3d 672, 675 (7th Cir. 2001)

(Easterbrook, J.)), and "streamlines litigation by dispensing with needless discovery and

factfinding." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-27 (1989). 

9

Id. at 326 (citing Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U. S. 69, 73 (1984)).

10Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.

11Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

12Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

4

Case 4:14-cv-01815-MWB Document 55 Filed 12/08/15 Page 4 of 10
raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of

[wrongdoing]."13 “This determination is "a context-specific task that requires the

reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense."14 "Where a

complaint pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it

'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to

relief.'"15

When disposing of a motion to dismiss, a court must "accept as true all

factual allegations in the complaint and draw all inferences from the facts alleged

in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff]."16 However, "the tenet that a court

must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint is inapplicable

to legal conclusions."17 "After Iqbal, it is clear that conclusory or 'bare-bones'

allegations will no longer survive a motion to dismiss."18 "Threadbare recitals of

the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not

13Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. 

14 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. 

15Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (internal quotations

omitted)).

16Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 228 (3d Cir. 2008) (Nygaard, J.).

17Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal citations omitted). 

18Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (Nygaard, J.). 

5

Case 4:14-cv-01815-MWB Document 55 Filed 12/08/15 Page 5 of 10
suffice."19

As a matter of procedure, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit has instructed that:

[A]fter Iqbal, when presented with a motion to dismiss for failure to state

a claim, district courts should conduct a two-part analysis. First, the

factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated. The District

Court must accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but

may disregard any legal conclusions. Second, a District Court must then

determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to

show that the plaintiff has a "plausible claim for relief." In other words,

a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief.

A complaint has to "show" such an entitlement with its facts.20

Sandals and Unique Vacations Ltd. allege several bases for dismissal. The

Court need not address each and every argument, however, as the matter is

disposed on the first basis, namely that this Court does not have personal

jurisdiction over either Sandals or Unique Vacations Ltd. Both motions to dismiss

are granted, as neither Defendant is subject to general personal jurisdiction in this

state.21

19 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

20Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210-11 (internal citations omitted).

21Nor are either subject to specific jurisdiction, through an alleged agency or alter ego

relationship with Unique Vacations Inc. There is no evidence in the record regarding Unique

Vacations Inc. There is no proof of service on the docket pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l) and the

time to have served Unique Vacations Inc. pursuant to Rule 4(m) has expired. Unique

Vacations, Inc. will consequently be dismissed for Plaintiffs failure to comply with Rule 4. 

6

Case 4:14-cv-01815-MWB Document 55 Filed 12/08/15 Page 6 of 10
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) authorizes personal jurisdiction over a

defendant to the extent provided in the law of the state. The Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania’s long arm statute22 allows personal jurisdiction to the

constitutionally allowable limits of due process. “[A] court may assert jurisdiction

over a foreign corporation “to hear any and all claims against it” only when the

corporation’s affiliations with the State in which suit is brought are so constant and

pervasive “as to render it essentially at home in the forum State.”23 The Melaragnis

have not put forth evidence that Sandals or Unique Vacations Ltd. is “at home” in

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and I conclude that neither may be sued here

for injuries attributed to Sandals’ conduct in Jamaica.24

Even after conducting jurisdictional discovery, the Melaragnis were unable

to find conduct that would suggest that Sandals or Unique Vacations Ltd. is at

home in Pennsylvania. “Goodyear[, infra,] made clear that only a limited set of

affiliations with a forum will render a defendant amenable to all-purpose

2242 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322.

23Daimler AG v. Bauman, ___U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 746, 751 (U.S. 2014) citing Goodyear

Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, ___U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2851, 180 L. Ed. 2d

796, 803. (Internal quotations omitted). 

24See McCann v. Sandals Resorts Intern., 2015 WL 619636 (February 11, 2015) (Yohn,

J.) (Holding that Sandals Resorts International is not subject to general personal jurisdiction in

Pennsylvania). 

7

Case 4:14-cv-01815-MWB Document 55 Filed 12/08/15 Page 7 of 10
jurisdiction there.”25 “For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of

general jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile; for a corporation, it is an

equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at home.”26

Considering corporate status, the United States Supreme Court has

suggested that: “With respect to a corporation, the place of incorporation and

principal place of business are “paradig[m] . . . bases for general jurisdiction.”27

Sandals International is a Jamaican corporation, with its headquarters and principal

place of business in Jamaica.28 Unique Vacations Ltd. is a Bahamian corporation,

with its headquarters and principal place of business in the Bahamas.29

Furthermore, “Goodyear did not hold that a corporation may be subject to

general jurisdiction only in a forum where it is incorporated or has its principal

place of business; it simply typed those places paradigm all-purpose forums,”30 so I

next turn to the Defendant other contacts with Pennsylvania, and find none. 

Sandals International conducts no business in Pennsylvania, nor is it authorized to

25Daimler, 134 U.S. at 760. 

26Id. 

27Id. 

28ECF No. 5-2 at 19. 

29ECF No. 28-1 at 2. 

30Daimler, 134 U.S. at 760.

8

Case 4:14-cv-01815-MWB Document 55 Filed 12/08/15 Page 8 of 10
do so; 31 this also holds true for Unique Vacations Ltd.32 Sandals has no

Pennsylvania officers, employees, bank accounts, offices, or listed telephone

numbers;33 neither does Unique Vacations Ltd.34 Sandals also owns no property in

Pennsylvania, pays no Pennsylvania taxes, and employs no registered agent for

service of process in the state;35 the same statement applies to Unique Vacations,

Ltd.36 Finally, neither Sandals nor Unique Vacations, Ltd. directly markets in

Pennsylvania through any medium.37 In sum, neither Sandals nor Unique

Vacations Ltd, has “continuous corporate operations within [this] state [that are] so

substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on causes of action

arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities.”38

31ECF No. 5-2 at 18. 

32ECF No. 28-1 at 3.

33ECF No. 5-2 at 19. 

34ECF No. 28-1 at 4. 

35ECF No. 5-2 at 21. 

36ECF No. 28-2 at 4. 

37ECF No. 5-2 at 21 and ECF No. 28-1 at 4. 

38International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 318, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95

(1945), see e.g., J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U. S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2780, 2805,

180 L. Ed. 2d 765, 793 (2011) (Ginsburg J., dissenting) (noting unanimous agreement that a

foreign manufacturer, which engaged an independent U. S.-based distributor to sell its machines

throughout the United States, could not be exposed to all-purpose jurisdiction in New Jersey

courts based on those contacts).

.

9

Case 4:14-cv-01815-MWB Document 55 Filed 12/08/15 Page 9 of 10
III. CONCLUSION

The action will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction over

the matter. An appropriate Order will follow. 

 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

10

Case 4:14-cv-01815-MWB Document 55 Filed 12/08/15 Page 10 of 10