1st Cir.

Elizabeth Putnam; Cale Putnam v. EPR Properties; Premier Parks, LLC

April 28, 2026 ·25-1857 ·Panel Decision ·Dunlap · By Maria Santos

The First Circuit reversed a dismissal regarding personal jurisdiction over Premier Parks, LLC, remanding for discovery into its operational ties to a Canadian hotel. The court affirmed the dismissal against EPR Properties but modified the ruling to allow the plaintiffs to refile the claim.

Background

Plaintiffs, bereaved parents, sued Premier Parks and EPR Properties in Massachusetts federal court after their five-year-old son died when an unsecured Murphy bed fell on him at the Hotel Valcartier in Quebec, Canada. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, submitting affidavits denying ownership or operation of the hotel. The district court dismissed the claims with prejudice and denied jurisdictional discovery. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing the defendants marketed to and contracted with Massachusetts residents.

The court’s reasoning

The court applied the prima facie standard, accepting the plaintiffs’ evidence as true unless contradicted by undisputed facts. Regarding Premier Parks, the court found a genuine conflict between the defendants’ declarations and public documents, including job postings and website statements suggesting Premier employees worked at the hotel and Premier managed the property. This ambiguity justified jurisdictional discovery. Regarding EPR Properties, the court found the plaintiffs’ evidence failed to contradict sworn statements that EPR did not market to or contract with Massachusetts residents directly. The court also held that dismissals for lack of jurisdiction should typically be without prejudice.

We therefore remand to the district court with instructions to allow jurisdictional discovery consistent with this opinion.

What it means going forward

The ruling allows the wrongful death lawsuit to proceed against Premier Parks pending further fact-finding on its relationship with the hotel operator, while permitting the plaintiffs to refile the claim against EPR Properties in the future.