Court Opinion

ID: 9391532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 16:09:10.269844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:41.070835
License: Public Domain

J-A05026-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 ADAM WATSON                             :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :         PENNSYLVANIA
                    Appellant            :
                                         :
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 GREAT WOLF RESORTS, INC.                :    No. 1951 EDA 2022

                 Appeal from the Order Entered July 1, 2022,
              in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County,
                   Civil Division at No(s): 2665-CV-2021.

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                            FILED MAY 2, 2023

      Adam Watson appeals from the order sustaining Great Wolf Resorts,

Inc.’s (“Great Wolf”) preliminary objections for lack of personal jurisdiction

and dismissing his complaint in this personal injury action. Upon review, we

affirm.

      On May 26, 2021, Watson filed a complaint alleging that, on November

24, 2019, he was injured while riding a water slide at a park owned by Great

Wolf. After reinstating the complaint multiple times, ultimately, it was served

at 1 Great Wolf Drive, Scotrun, Pennsylvania, on January 25, 2022.

      In response, on February 16, 2022, Great Wolf filed preliminary

objections challenging personal jurisdiction and service. Great Wolf attached

to its preliminary objections the affidavit of Craig Johnson, Esq. who stated

that he was employed in the legal department of Great Lakes Services, LLC,
J-A05026-23

a wholly-owned subsidiary of Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. As such, he indicated

that he had personal knowledge of the facts set forth in his affidavit. Mr.

Johnson stated that Great Wolf was a Delaware corporation with its principal

place of business in Madison, Wisconsin and that it does not own or operate

the waterpark at 1 Great Wolf Drive, Scotrun, PA 18355 where service was

made. He stated that Great Wolf does not conduct any business at 1 Great

Wolf Drive, Scotrun, Pennsylvania, and does not conduct any business in

Pennsylvania at all. It also has no corporate offices in Pennsylvania, and no

one at 1 Great Wolf Drive, Scotrun, Pennsylvania was authorized to accept

service of process on its behalf.

      Because Great Wolf raised an issue of fact involving a jurisdictional

challenge, the trial court directed the parties to take any necessary discovery

regarding that issue. The court then held a hearing at which counsel indicated

no discovery was taken and offered no evidence to support Watson’s claim

that the court had personal jurisdiction over Great Wolf. The court sustained

Great Wolf’s preliminary objections and dismissed Watson’s complaint against

Great Wolf.

      Watson filed this timely appeal. Watson and the trial court complied

with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.

      On appeal, Watson raises the following five issues for our review:

      A. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred and/or abused its discretion in
      granting the [p]reliminary [o]bjections filed by [Great Wolf] in this
      matter, in that the [c]ourt improperly determined that it lacked in
      personam jurisdiction over [Great Wolf] in this matter.

                                      -2-
J-A05026-23

      B. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred and/or abused its discretion in
      granting the [p]reliminary [o]bjections filed by [Great Wolf] and
      dismissing the within case without affording [Watson] leave to
      amend the [c]omplaint filed in this matter in accordance with Pa.
      R.C.P. 1028.

      C. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred and/or abused its discretion in
      granting the [p]reliminary [o]bjections filed by [Great Wolf] in this
      matter, in that the record reflects that Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. is
      a proper [d]efendant in this matter.

      D. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred and/or abused its discretion
      in granting the [p]reliminary [o]bjections filed by [Great Wolf] in
      this matter, in that the [c]ourt improperly determined that service
      of original process was improperly effectuated upon [Great Wolf]
      in this matter.

      E. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred and/or abused its discretion in
      granting the [p]reliminary [o]bjections filed by [Great Wolf] in this
      matter and dismissing the within civil action.

Watson’s Brief at 4-5 (reordered for purposes of disposition).

      In his first issue, Watson claims that the trial court erred in granting

Great Wolf’s preliminary objections on the basis that it lacked personal

jurisdiction over Great Wolf. Specifically, Watson argues that Great Wolf owns

and operates a waterpark in Pennsylvania. As such, Great Wolf has sufficient

minimum contacts with Pennsylvania because it has purposefully directed its

activities at residents of Pennsylvania and purposefully availed itself of the

privilege of conducting business in Pennsylvania. Watson’s Brief at 4.

      Our standard of review in an appeal from an order granting preliminary

objections challenging the exercise of in personam jurisdiction is as follows:

      In determining whether the trial court properly sustained
      preliminary objections, the appellate court must examine the
      averments in the complaint, together with the documents and
      exhibits attached thereto, in order to evaluate the sufficiency of

                                      -3-
J-A05026-23

      the facts averred. When sustaining the trial court's ruling will
      result in the denial of a claim or a dismissal of suit, preliminary
      objections will be sustained only where the case is free and clear
      of doubt, and this Court will reverse the trial court's decision
      regarding preliminary objections only where there has been an
      error of law or an abuse of discretion.

      Moreover, when deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
      jurisdiction[,] the court must consider the evidence in the light
      most favorable to the non-moving party. This Court will reverse
      the trial court's decision regarding preliminary objections only
      where there has been an error of law or an abuse of discretion.
      Once the moving party supports its objections to personal
      jurisdiction, the burden of proving personal jurisdiction is upon the
      party asserting it.

Sulkava v. Glaston Finland Oy, 54 A.3d 884, 889 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal

denied, 75 A.3d 1282 (2013) (citations omitted). “Courts must resolve the

question of personal jurisdiction based on the circumstances of each case.”

Mendel v. Williams, 53 A.3d 810, 816–817 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quotation

omitted).

      Here, upon receiving Great Wolf’s preliminary objections, the trial court

directed the parties to take discovery to resolve the jurisdictional issue

stating:

      When an issue of fact is raised, the court may not decide a
      jurisdictional challenge as a matter of law based upon its own view
      of the controverted facts. When the parties’ submissions raise an
      issue of fact as to the scope of a defendant's activities within the
      Commonwealth, the plaintiff has the right to depose defendant as
      to his activities within the Commonwealth, and the court must
      permit the taking of the deposition before ruling on the
      preliminary objections. In that event, it is appropriate to allow
      the parties a reasonable period of time in which to present
      evidence by deposition, interrogatories or otherwise.

                                      -4-
J-A05026-23

Trial Court Opinion, 3/25/22, at 2-3 (quotations and citations omitted).

However, as the trial court observed, no discovery was conducted, and no

evidence was offered to support Watson’s claim of personal jurisdiction. In

ruling on Great Wolf’s objections, the trial court explained:

        It was Mr. Watson's burden to present evidence establishing a
        basis for personal jurisdiction. This evidence would also have been
        relevant on the question of whether Great Wolf Resorts had
        anything to do with Watson’s alleged injury . . . . As Great Wolf
        Resorts' objection was unrebutted, I sustained the preliminary
        objections and dismissed the complaint.

Id. at 4.

        Upon review we note that Watson does not address his failure to conduct

discovery or present evidence at the hearing. Instead, Watson simply claims

that Great Wolf’s assertions are without merit. These unsubstantiated claims

are not enough to rebut Great Wolf’s affidavit. Consequently, because Watson

presented no evidence to challenge Great Wolf’s affidavit in support of its

preliminary objections or establish jurisdiction over Great Wolf, we conclude

that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in sustaining Great Wolf’s

preliminary objections, and Watson’s first issue fails.

        In his second issue, Watson claims that the trial court erred in sustaining

Great Wolf’s preliminary objections and dismissing Watson’s case without

giving Watson the opportunity to amend his complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.

1028.     Specifically, Watson agues that he could have cured the alleged

deficiencies by filing an amended complaint with additional information

regarding personal jurisdiction over Great Wolf, and or included additional

                                        -5-
J-A05026-23

defendants, namely entities related to Great Wolf, such as Great Wolf Lodge

of the Poconos, LLC, and/or Great Wolf Resorts Holdings, Inc., as parties.

Watson’s Brief at 13. Similarly, in his third issue, Watson claims that Great

Wolf is a proper party to the litigation. Id. at 15.

       Pennsylvania     Rule    of Civil Procedure   1033(a) allows for    “[a]n

amendment correcting the name of a party against whom a claim has been

asserted against in the original pleading” if certain conditions are met. And,

generally, amendments to pleadings are to be liberally allowed.             See

Capobianchi v. Bic Corp., 666 A.2d 344, 446 (Pa. Super. 1995).             Here,

however, we observe, as the trial court did, that Watson made no request to

amend his complaint.1 Instead, Watson waited until August 2, 2022, to raise

it for the first time in a motion for leave to amend complaint and reinstate his

case. This was more than 30 days from the date of the court’s order sustaining

Great Wolf’s preliminary objections and after Watson filed a notice of appeal.

At that point, the trial court no longer had jurisdiction. Thus, Watson failed to

timely request leave to amend the complaint before the trial court. Watson

cannot raise this issue for the first time on appeal; it is therefore waived.

Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). Watson also failed to timely join Great Wolf. Thus, Watson’s

second and third issues fail.

____________________________________________

1 Watson could have done so without leave of court within 20 days after
service of a copy of the preliminary objections. Pa.R.C.P. 1028(c)(1).

                                           -6-
J-A05026-23

       Because of our disposition on these issues, we need not address

Watson’s remaining issues.2

       Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/2/2023

____________________________________________

2 The service issue is moot, and the final issue was subsumed by the first four
issues.

                                           -7-