United States District Court, District of Columbia
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Glynda Myers, Washington, DC, pro se.
Joan Augusta Harvill, International Law Center, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Paul Raymond Pearson, Law Offices of Roger S. Mackey, Chantilly, VA, for Defendant.
GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR TRANSFER
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, District Judge.
This matter comes before the court on the defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident who alleges that she was injured in a Georgia franchise of a Holiday Inn. The defendants are Holiday Inns, Inc., a corporation licensed to do business in the District; the Island Group, LLC, a franchisee of the Holiday Inn located in Georgia; and Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., a licensing corporation. The plaintiff brings suit against all three defendants alleging negligence that resulted in physical injury. The plaintiff claims that this court has jurisdiction over the defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) and D.C.Code § 13-423, the District's long arm statute. The defendants move to dismiss the plaintiff's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) or alternatively, 12(b)(3), asserting that the plaintiff's claim is barred for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. For the reasons discussed below, the court transfers this matter to the Southern District of Georgia.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Glynda Myers (" the plaintiff" ) is a District of Columbia resident. The plaintiff names three defendants in the present action: Holiday Inns, Inc.,  incorporated in Delaware and having no ownership interest in Island Group (" HHI" ); the Island Group, LLC, a Georgia-based limited liability company with its principal place of business in Georgia, which owns and operates the Holiday Inn franchise where plaintiff alleges she was injured (" Island Group" ); and Holiday Hospitality Franchising,
Inc., a Delaware-incorporated licensing company (" HHFI" ) (collectively " the defendants" ). Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that Island Group is liable under a respondeat superior theory of negligence for the acts of its employees, and that both HHI and HHFI are liable as controlling entities of Island Group. The defendants assert that this court must dismiss the ...