False Imprisonment 53 Forte v Hyatt Summerfield Suites No C 11 2568 CW ND Cal

False imprisonment 53 forte v hyatt summerfield

This preview shows page 18 - 20 out of 33 pages.

False Imprisonment 53. Forte v. Hyatt Summerfield Suites , No. C 11-2568 CW (N.D. Cal. 12/18/12). Plaintiff, a guest at Defend ant’s hotel, was acting erratic while in the lobby of the hotel claiming to the
Image of page 18
© - Copyright 2014, Karen Morris, J.D., LL.M. and Diana S. Barber, J.D., CHE 19 hotel staff and others that his life was in jeopardy. The police were contacted and they tried for over an hour to get Plaintiff to leave his room. Plaintiff refused to come out to speak to the officers and began yelling through the door and windows of the hotel and told the officers they were in trouble. Plaintiff bolted himself in the room. Eventually, the officers decided that Plaintiff was a danger to himself and possibly others and detained him for a mental health evaluation. Plaintiff subsequently sued the hotel for wrongful eviction, false imprisonment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, assault, batter and civil rights violations. The court said that California courts have specifically recognized that a hotel cannot be liable for false imprisonment either for its communication to the police or for the conduct of the police in detaining guests. The court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims. Summary judgment granted for Defendant. Federal Jurisdiction 54. Lucas v. Ultima Framingham LLC , _F.Supp.2d_, 2013 WL 5405668 (Mass., 09/27/13). Plaintiff was on the wait staff of Defendant hotel and conference center. He was the named plaintiff in a class action lawsuit that alleged Defendant failed to distribute the full amount of the workers’ gratuities. Soon thereafter Plaintiff was terminated and he brought this lawsuit in state court for retaliation. The hotel sought to remove the case to federal court, and Plaintiff denied that the $75,000 required amount in controversy would be met. The case was brought under a state statute which entitled successful plaintiffs to treble damages and attorney’s fees. The court calculated that P laintiff’s earnings were about $5000 per month; after eight months of litigation he would be entitled to $40,000; when tripled the amount would exceed $75,000. The case was thus directed to federal court. Forum Non Conveniens 55. Sullivan v. Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc., __F.Supp.2 nd __, 2013 WL 2637179 (Mass., 06/13/13). Plaintiff, a resident of Massachusetts, was a guest at a Starwood Hotel in Beijing, China. While with his wife and two friends from his hometown, he fell due to a “hazardous object” in the hotel parking garage. He went to a clinic there, which transferred him to a hospital where he underwent surgery. Following surgery and his return home to Massachusetts, he received treatment at a clinic. He commenced a lawsuit in Massachusetts against the hotel. The hotel moved for dismissal based on forum non conveniens. The court denied the motion for the following reasons.
Image of page 19
Image of page 20

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 33 pages?

  • Summer '18
  • Pascal Christian
  • Law, Speak, Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Trial court, diana s. barber, Defendant’s hotel

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture