Opinion
Supreme Court No. S-17602 No. 1779
07-22-2020
ANNE P. MULLIGAN, Appellant, v. HMS HOST INTERNATIONAL, Appellee.
Appearances: Anne P. Mulligan, pro se, Anchorage, Appellant. Kevin M. Cuddy, Stoel Rives LLP, Anchorage, for Appellee.
NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. A party wishing to cite such a decision in a brief or at oral argument should review Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d). Superior Court No. 3AN-19-07536 CI MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Gregory Miller, Judge. Appearances: Anne P. Mulligan, pro se, Anchorage, Appellant. Kevin M. Cuddy, Stoel Rives LLP, Anchorage, for Appellee. Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, and Carney, Justices.
Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214.
Ann Mulligan sued HMS Host International, alleging that she was harassed while she was a customer at its Anchorage airport restaurant. The defendant specially appeared to contest personal jurisdiction, submitting evidence and asserting that Mulligan had sued a foreign entity not doing business in the United States. The record suggests that the correct defendant would be Host International, Inc., a Delaware corporation registered to do business in Alaska; its majority owner, HMSHost Corporation, another Delaware corporation, is a sister corporation to the foreign entity, and both are owned by yet another foreign entity. Although Mulligan requested that the superior court grant leave to name the correct corporation, the court dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice and ordered that "the case is closed." (Emphasis in original.) Mulligan appeals the dismissal of her lawsuit and the denial of her motion to change the defendant's name.
See Sister corporation, BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019) ("One of two or more corporations controlled by the same, or substantially the same, owners.").
We AFFIRM the superior court's order because the motion for dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction was correctly granted and because dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice so that Mulligan can file a new lawsuit naming the correct defendant, who now seemingly has been identified to Mulligan along with the proper service information, did not prejudice her.
See Harper v. BioLife Energy Sys., Inc., 426 P.3d 1067, 1071 (Alaska 2018) (discussing limits of personal jurisdiction). --------