The Franchise Memorandum

A federal court in Maryland granted a foreign hotel franchisee’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction but denied a forum non conveniens motion in a personal injury case naming both franchisor and franchisee as defendants. Sant v. Marriott Int’l, 2023 WL 2213926 (D. Md. Feb. 24, 2023). Plaintiff John Sant sued Marriott and its franchisee Juhu Beach Resorts after being injured at a hotel in India. The defendants moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing that the matter should be decided in India. Marriot also moved to dismiss, arguing that it neither owned nor operated the property, and Juhu Beach Resorts moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The court granted Juhu Beach Resorts’ personal jurisdiction motion, finding that merely entering into the franchise agreement did not subject it to the court’s jurisdiction. The court denied the forum non conveniens motion, however, on the basis that substantial deference is due for a plaintiff’s choice of forum, and the court found no substantially greater convenience to parties and witnesses in proceedings based in India. Finally, the court denied Marriott’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding summary judgment a more appropriate stage for assessing Marriott’s degree of control over the hotel’s operations.