From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Swain v. Aramark Sports & Entm't Servs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
May 25, 2021
CASE NO. 1:21-cv-00522 (N.D. Ohio May. 25, 2021)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:21-cv-00522

05-25-2021

JO ANN SWAIN, Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.


OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 4] :

Plaintiff Jo Ann Swain sustained injuries while on a bus tour in Alaska. Swain sues the bus tour operator, Defendant Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC ("Aramark").

Doc. 1.

Doyon/Aramark Denali National Park Concession Joint Venture ("Doyon/Aramark") appeared on behalf of Defendant Aramark, asserting it was the proper defendant. According to Doyon/Aramark, it operated the bus tour, not Aramark.

Doc. 4.

Id.

Doyon/Aramark moves to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. In support of its motion to dismiss, Doyon/Aramark claims that the Doyon/Aramark joint venture has insufficient contacts with Ohio to support personal jurisdiction. Doyon/Aramark makes no argument specifically related to whether its participants, Doyon and Aramark have Ohio contacts.

In the alternative, Doyon/Aramark moves to transfer venue to the Federal District Court for the District of Alaska. Plaintiff opposes.

Id.

Doc. 8.

For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Doyon/Aramark's motion.

I. Discussion

Doyon/Aramark says it is a joint venture between Aramark and Doyon Limited, licensed to do business in Alaska.

Doc. 4-2. Doyon/Aramark does not establish it is a limited liability company or corporation.

In Alaska, "the association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit formed a partnership, whether or not the persons intended to form a partnership." Further, "all partners are liable jointly and severally for all obligations of the partnership unless otherwise agreed by the claimant or provided by law."

Doyon/Aramark is a partnership between Aramark and Doyon Limited. Aramark is jointly and severally liable for Doyon/Aramark's obligations. Accordingly, Aramark is a proper defendant to Plaintiff's suit.

II. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Doyon/Aramark's motion to dismiss or transfer venue. Doyon/Aramark is not a party to this suit. Defendant Aramark is the proper defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 25, 2021

s/ James S . Gwin

JAMES S. GWIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Swain v. Aramark Sports & Entm't Servs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
May 25, 2021
CASE NO. 1:21-cv-00522 (N.D. Ohio May. 25, 2021)
Case details for

Swain v. Aramark Sports & Entm't Servs.

Case Details

Full title:JO ANN SWAIN, Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Date published: May 25, 2021

Citations

CASE NO. 1:21-cv-00522 (N.D. Ohio May. 25, 2021)