Opinion
Case No. A4-03-22
October 31, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Summary: A non-resident defendant filed a motion to dismiss a suit filed by a North Dakota resident for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court granted the defendant's motion, holding that the defendant lacked the requisite "minimum contacts" with the forum state to warrant the Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion was filed on September 15, 2003. The Plaintiff has not responded to the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff, (Father Konstantine-Kenneth Brown) a North Dakota resident, sought medical treatment for alcohol abuse, substance abuse and depression from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota on January 6, 2001. The Mayo Clinic was not named as a defendant. Mayo Rochester is a separate entity that provides medical care to patients through its operation of the Mayo Clinic. Mayo Rochester was also not named as a defendant. It is a non-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws in Minnesota. The only named defendant, Mayo Foundation, is a separate non-profit corporation in Minnesota. The Mayo Foundation did not provide any medical care or treatment to the Plaintiff. See Affidavit of Jonathan J. Oviatt.
The Plaintiff was prescribed Prozac and experienced adverse reactions including suicidal thoughts. On February 25, 2001, the Plaintiff attempted suicide by jumping from a third story window at the Guest House during which attempt he injured himself. The Guest House is not owned or operated by the Mayo Foundation, Mayo Rochester, or any other Mayo entity. The suicide attempt took place in Rochester, Minnesota. The Plaintiff alleges that his suicide attempt was due to the Defendant's negligent failure to supervise, diagnose and recognize his adverse reaction to Prozac. Jurisdiction is premised upon diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When considering motions to dismiss, the Court must construe the complaint liberally and assume all factual allegations to be true. Goss v. City of Little Rock, 90 F.3d 306, 308 (8th Cir. 1996). A dismissal will not be granted unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. Id.
A federal court in a diversity action may assume jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant only to the extent permitted by the forum state's long-arm provision and by the Due Process Clause. Morris v. Barkbuster, Inc., 923 F.2d 1277, 1280 (8th Cir. 1991). To survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff need only to establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. Dakota Industries, Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 946 F.2d 1384, 1387 (8th Cir. 1991). Again, all facts must be viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and all factual conflicts must be resolved in his favor. Id. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that personal jurisdiction exists once a defendant has challenged it. Falkirk Mining Co. v. Japan Steel Works, Ltd., 906 F.2d 369, 373 (8th Cir. 1990).
The North Dakota Supreme Court has ruled that the state's long arm statute is to be exercised to the fullest extent permitted by due process. See In Re North Dakota Personal Injury Asbestos Litigation, 737 F. Supp. 1087, 1093 (D. N.D. 1990) (citing Hust v. Northern Log, Inc., 297 N.W.2d 429, 431 (N.D. 1980)). The long-arm statute is contained in Rules 4(b)(2) and 4(b)(3) of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 4(b)(2) lists the contacts with North Dakota that may form the basis of jurisdiction. Rule 4(b)(3) provides that when "jurisdiction over a person is based on 4(b)(2), only claims for relief arising from bases enumerated therein may be asserted against that person."
North Dakota's long arm statute permits the exercise of jurisdiction over a person who commits a tort within or without the state causing injury to another person or property within the state. See N.D.R. Civ. P. 4(b)(2)(c); see also Falkirk Mining Co., 906 F.2d at 373. Thus, constitutional limits will determine whether jurisdiction over the defendant is proper.
For personal jurisdiction, the Due Process Clause requires minimum contacts between the non-resident defendant and the forum state. A defendant's contacts with the forum state are sufficient if they are such that it should "reasonably anticipate being haled into court there, and when maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286-291 (1980). Contacts with the forum state must be more than "random, fortuitous, or attenuated." Dakota Industries, Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 946 F.2d at 1387. The defendant must have purposely availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Id.
The following five-factor test is used when measuring minimum contacts: (1) the nature and quality of the contacts with the forum state; (2) the quantity of contacts with the forum state; (3) the relation of the cause of action to the contacts; (4) the interest of the forum state in providing a forum for its residents; and (5) the convenience of the parties. Dakota Industries, Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 946 F.2d 1384, 1390 (8th Cir. 1991).
"Where specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident is asserted, due process is satisfied if the defendant has purposely directed its activities at forum residents, and the litigation results from injuries arising out of, or relating to, those activities." Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Maple Industries, Inc., 97 F.3d 1100, 1103 (8th Cir. 1996).
III. LEGAL DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss may be deemed an admission that the motion is well-taken and subjects the matter to summary ruling. Local Rule 7.1(C). Nevertheless, the Court will address the merits of the motion.
Submitted along with the Defendant's brief was the affidavit of Jonathan J. Oviatt. Mr. Oviatt is Assistant Secretary of the Mayo Clinic Rochester. From Mr. Oviatt we learn that Mayo Rochester provides medical care to patients through its operation of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Mayo Rochester is the entity that treated the Plaintiff from January-April 2001. It is undisputed that the Mayo Foundation provided no medical care or other treatment to the Plaintiff at any time. Further, neither Mayo Rochester nor the Mayo Foundation is licensed to do business in North Dakota; neither possesses any medical facilities or offices in North Dakota; and neither conducts any business in North Dakota. The Mayo Foundation/Mayo Clinic has no employees or bank accounts in North Dakota and pays no income or property taxes in North Dakota. It is undisputed from the record that all of the events described in the complaint took place in Minnesota.
As previously noted, the only named Defendant in this matter is the Mayo Foundation. It is the position of the Mayo Foundation that the Plaintiff was treated at a wholly separate corporation called the Mayo Rochester and that Mayo Rochester is the only proper Defendant to this lawsuit.
It is clear and undisputed from the record that the Defendant has had no contact whatsoever with the State of North Dakota. Therefore, the Court concludes that the "minimum contacts" test has not been satisfied. The Court expressly finds that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 15) is GRANTED. The case is dismissed without prejudice and without costs to either party.