Sigros v. Walt Disney World Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that plaintiff’s initiation of contact with Disney did not make Disney’s communications with her involuntary
• explaining that a “but for” test applies for determining when an injury “arises” from transacting business in Massachusetts (citing Tatro, 416 Mass. at 770-71)
• noting that if “the persuasion of an employer who is a party to the action can secure the appearance of witnesses regardless of the location of forum, that factor diminishes in importance”
• finding personal jurisdiction over a Florida resort where plaintiff had received mail “against a backdrop of constant solicitation of business in Massachusetts over a period of years by way of numerous advertisements” and received specific assurances by phone regarding a trip
• “Jurisdiction over HRC will lie, then, only if the activities of HRC are confusingly intermingled with those of Disney so as to warrant imputing the established contacts between Disney/WDA and Massachusetts to HRC itself.”
• in holding that plaintiffs satisfied Nowak’s modified proximate cause standard, observing that “Disney assured [mother] that handicapped-accessible facilities were available for [daughter] in their hotel room”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).