Gardemal v. Westin Hotel Co.

186 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 1999)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P and her husband John W. Gardemal, a physician, traveled to Cabo San Lucas, Baja California Sur, Mexico, to attend a medical seminar held at the Westin Regina Resort Los Cabos. The Westin Regina is owned by Desarollos Turisticos Integrales Cabo San Lucas, S.A. de C.V. ('DTI'), and managed by Westin Mexico. Westin Mexico is a subsidiary of D and is incorporated in Mexico. During their stay at the hotel, the Gardemals decided to go snorkeling with a group of guests. According to P, the concierge at the Westin Regina directed the group to 'Lovers Beach' which, unbeknownst to the group, was notorious for its rough surf and strong undercurrents. Five men in the group were swept into the Pacific Ocean by a rogue wave and thrown against the rocks. Two of the men, including John Gardemal, drowned. P brought wrongful death and survival actions under Texas law against D and Westin Mexico, alleging that her husband drowned because Westin Regina's concierge negligently directed the group to Lovers Beach and failed to warn her husband of its dangerous condition. D then moved for summary judgment, alleging that although it is the parent company of Westin Mexico, it is a separate corporate entity and thus could not be held liable for acts committed by its subsidiary. The magistrate judge rejected P's assertion that the state-law doctrines of alter-ego and single business enterprise allowed the court to disregard D's separate corporate identity. Westin Mexico also moved to dismiss the suit. In a Rule 12(b)(2) motion, Westin Mexico alleged that there were insufficient minimum contacts to bring it within the personal jurisdiction of the court. Finding that there was neither general nor specific jurisdiction over Westin Mexico, the magistrate judge concluded that personal jurisdiction was lacking and recommended that Westin Mexico be dismissed. The district court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendations and dismissed P's suit. P appealed.