Background
Nine plaintiffs alleged that a part-time counselor at the Boys and Girls Club of Hudson County sexually abused them between 1976 and 1984, both during club-sponsored activities and at his apartment. After New Jersey amended its Child Sexual Abuse Act in 2019 to revive certain previously time-barred claims, the plaintiffs sued the Hudson County club, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and others.
The national organization, BGCA, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court found no general jurisdiction but, after jurisdictional discovery, held that New Jersey could exercise specific jurisdiction. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the plaintiffs’ claims were insufficiently connected to BGCA’s New Jersey contacts. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State’s courts lacked specific personal jurisdiction over BGCA. Although BGCA had contacts with New Jersey—including providing the local club with sample programming, organizational support, professional-development opportunities, and training, while receiving membership dues and requiring use of its name and logo—the plaintiffs’ claims did not arise out of or relate to those contacts.
The Court reasoned that the claims rested on BGCA’s alleged failure to adopt safeguards against child sexual abuse, not on an affirmative act through which BGCA purposefully availed itself of New Jersey. Neither the Court nor the U.S. Supreme Court had treated a failure to promulgate policies, absent a duty to act, as purposeful availment. Because the required minimum contacts were lacking, the Court did not reach whether jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice. The claims could continue in New Jersey against other defendants, but not against BGCA.
Key Takeaways
- A national organization’s support, branding, training opportunities, and membership relationship with a local affiliate do not automatically create specific jurisdiction for every claim involving that affiliate.
- Specific jurisdiction requires a strong connection between the defendant’s affirmative forum-directed conduct and the plaintiff’s claims.
- An alleged failure to adopt protective policies did not constitute purposeful availment of New Jersey under the circumstances presented.
Why It Matters
The decision limits when New Jersey courts may hear claims against national organizations based on injuries connected to local affiliates. A plaintiff must connect the particular claim to affirmative conduct that the national organization directed toward New Jersey; alleging that nationwide policies should have prevented the harm is not enough.
Justice Hoffman, joined by Justice Fasciale, dissented, reasoning that BGCA’s branding, membership requirements, support, and training sufficiently connected the plaintiffs’ claims to its New Jersey activities and that New Jersey was the only available forum for the revived claims.