Civil Practice – Personal Jurisdiction – N.C. Camp – S.C. Counselor – Venue Transfer – Civil Rights – ADA

Listen to this article

E.E. v. Eagle’s Nest Foundation (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-144-16, 16 pp.) (Bruce Howe Hendricks, J.) 8:15-cv-02296; D.S.C.

Holding: Only once in the past five years has a “camp representative” – someone who gets a camp tuition discount from the North Carolina defendant for soliciting potential campers – held a Camp Rep party in South Carolina. Given this fact and the fact that solicitation activities alone do not constitute the minimum contacts required for general jurisdiction, the court concludes that South Carolina does not have general jurisdiction over the North Carolina defendant-camp.

The court transfers venue to the Western District of North Carolina.

Plaintiff does not allege any other type of continuous and systematic operation that justifies the exercise of general jurisdiction over defendant. Defendant’s Outdoor Academy participants have attended two dances near Cleveland, South Carolina, one in March 2012 and one in April 2015; defendant’s campers pass through South Carolina once a year on their way to and from a week-long excursion in Georgia; and the camp has held one activity in South Carolina in the past five years – a picnic in Greenville in July 2015. Such contact is not the continuous and systematic operation that would subject defendant to general jurisdiction in this court.

Plaintiff has also failed to establish specific jurisdiction. Although defendant took direct action in South Carolina through its collaboration with plaintiff’s mother as a camp representative, plaintiff does not allege that his claims arise out of this contact.

Although plaintiff claims that he used the discounts his mother received for his tuition to defendant’s programs, he does not allege that he used the discounts for the programs at issue in this case. Since plaintiff’s claims do not relate to his mother’s service as a camp representative, the court cannot find that specific jurisdiction arises out of this contact.

In response to plaintiff’s application to be a camp counselor, defendant sent an offer letter to plaintiff in South Carolina, where plaintiff signed the letter and mailed it back to defendant, along with payment for the position. However, the contract was to be performed in North Carolina. Further, plaintiff’s claim arises from actions that defendant took in North Carolina, specifically, defendant’s decision that defendant could no longer serve as a junior counselor after defendant learned of plaintiff’s depressive feelings.

The contact alleged by plaintiff does not establish minimum contact sufficient to subject defendant to specific personal jurisdiction in South Carolina.

The court declines to dismiss this action; instead, the court exercises its discretion to transfer venue to the Western District of North Carolina.

Venue transferred.