The opinion of the court was delivered by: Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge United States District Court
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
On May 8, 2009, Defendants in this action filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. No. 18.) On June 22, 2009, Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 24.) On July 6, 2009, Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 27.) After due consideration of the parties' submissions, the Court concludes that this matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court submits Defendants' motion to dismiss on the papers under Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons, the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss.
On October 21, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California. (Doc. No. 1, Ex. 1 [the "Complaint"].)
Plaintiff's Complaint alleges causes of action for negligence and negligence per se and seeks damages for personal injuries. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that, on or about November 1, 2007, he was a patron in the Super Stars Sports Bar located in the Radisson Hotel in Narita, Japan. (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 10.) Plaintiff states that, at the bar, he observed a woman near him begin to lose her balance. Plaintiff reached out his hand to steady the woman, but he was unable to prevent her from falling, and she fell into a glass door at the bar's entrance. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 11.) Plaintiff alleges that, because the door was not made of safety glass, it shattered upon impact into large sharp shards which rained down on Plaintiff and the woman, causing injuries. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 12.)
The Complaint alleges that Defendant Carlson Hotels Worldwide ("CHW") is the owner, operator, parent company and/or management company of Defendant Radisson Hotels International ("RHI") and actively participated in and controlled the business of RHI. (Compl. ¶ 4.) The Complaint further alleges that Defendants maintained the Super Stars Sports Bar during the relevant time period, and that they negligently and carelessly designed, constructed, owned, maintained, and inspected the glass door at the entrance. (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 15.) Plaintiff asserts that his injuries were directly and proximately caused by each Defendant's negligence in designing, constructing, maintaining, and inspecting the door. (Compl. ¶ 18.)
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that they neither own nor operate the bar and are therefore not liable for Plaintiff's injuries.
I. Whether the Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under Rule 12(b)(1)
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court must dismiss an action if it determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Rule 12(b)(1) provides that a defendant may move to dismiss on the basis that a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The question of constitutional standing is a "threshold matter central to [the Court's] subject matter jurisdiction," and the Court must assure itself that the constitutional standing requirements are satisfied before proceeding to the merits. Fulfillment Svcs. Inc. v. United Parcel Svc., Inc., 528 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2008). For these requirements to be met, (1) the plaintiff "must have suffered an injury in fact -- an invasion of a legally protected interest," (2) "there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of -- the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court," and (3) "it must be likely... that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." Paulsen v. CNF, Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1072 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)).
"[A] plaintiff filing an action in federal court has the burden of alleging specific facts sufficient to satisfy the standing elements." Loritz v. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 382 F.3d 990, 992 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to satisfy the causation requirement for constitutional standing. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendants maintained the Super Stars Sports Bar during the relevant time period, and that they negligently and carelessly designed, constructed, owned, maintained, and inspected the glass door at the entrance. (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 15.) Plaintiff asserts that his injuries were directly and proximately caused by each Defendant's negligence in designing, constructing, maintaining, and inspecting the door -- specifically, their failure to use safety glass. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 18.)
Instead of attacking the allegations of the complaint, a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction "may be made as a 'speaking motion' attacking the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact." Thornhill Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). Here, Defendants make such a factual attack, arguing that there can be no causation because they neither own nor operate the subject premises. (Mot. at 5-6.) Specifically, Defendants assert that Northwest Airlines owns both the Radisson Hotel Narita Airport and the Super Stars Sports Bar located within. (Mot. at 3.) Defendants further argue that their subsidiary, Carlson Hotels Asia Pacific Pty Ltd. ("CHAP"), is the Radisson entity responsible for managing the subject hotel, so that their liability would have to be imputed through CHAP. (Mot. at 4.) Defendants seek to prove their lack of control over CHAP and the premises through several declarations and accompanying exhibits. (Doc. No. 18-2, -3, -4, -5.) "Where the jurisdiction issue is separable from the merits of the case, the judge may consider the evidence presented with respect to the jurisdictional issue and rule on that issue, resolving factual disputes if necessary." Thornhil, 594 F.2d at 733. However, "if the attack on jurisdiction requires the court to consider the merits of the case, the court has jurisdiction to proceed to a decision on the merits." Id. at 734 (citing Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 739 (1947)).
In this case, Defendants challenge the causation element of constitutional standing. (Mot. at 5-6.) However, causation is also an essential element of a negligence claim under California law. Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc., 91 Cal. Rptr. 3d 864, 868 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (the elements of a negligence claim are "(1) a legal duty to use reasonable care, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) proximate or legal cause between the breach and (4) the plaintiff's injury."). The extent of Defendants' control over the subject premises will also determine whether Plaintiff can show that Defendants had a legal duty ...