Doctor filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction. A motion to dismiss on jurisdictional issues is proper when, viewing the facts in the most favorable light to the defendant, the plaintiff has failed to satisfy the elements of personal jurisdiction. Failure to object to personal jurisdiction before answering or in a party's first 12(b)(6) motion waives the issue. There is no indication that waiver occurred here.
Thus, the issue is whether the court in State B had personal jurisdiction over the Doctor.
Personal jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to adjudicate claims involving a particular party. Traditionally, personal jurisdiction is based on three concepts: consent, presence, and domicile. Here, there is nothing in the facts indicating that the doctor consented to personal jurisdiction. Moreover, there is nothing in the facts indicating that he was served while he was in State B or that he is a resident of state B. The facts indicate Doctor is a resident of state A. Thus, the traditional bases for jurisdiction are not met.
Many states have adopted long-arm statutes to obtain personal jurisdiction over nonresidents. While long-arm statutes can differ by state, jurisdiction under a long-arm statute must satisfy the constitutional requirements for the exercise of jurisdiction. Many states, like California, have adopted long-arm statutes which extend personal jurisdiction to the constitutional limits. In order to satisfy the constitutional requirements for personal jurisdiction, the defendant must have such minimum contacts with the forum state as to not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. In determining whether such minimum contacts are present, courts look to three things: 1) the level of contacts with the forum state, 2) the relatedness of those contacts to the cause of action, and 3) whether the exercise of jurisdiction would be fair, taking into account private and public considerations.
To determine whether a defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state to justify an exercise of personal jurisdiction, the court looks: 1) whether the defendant purposefully availed himself to the forum state and 2) whether the exercise of jurisdiction by the forum state would be foreseeable. Here, there is nothing in the facts to indicate that Doctor purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of State B. He did not travel to state B and he did not do business with state B or a company in state B. While the valve by Valvco was designed in state B, Doctor (or the hospital with whom he associates) likely dealt with Valvco through its headquarters in State D and purchased the valve through Valvco in State D. Thus, doctor has done nothing to purposefully avail himself of the benefits and protections of state B. It is not foreseeable that Doctor could be sued in State B because doctor did not conduct surgery in state B or take any action in state B. Moreover, Doctor did not interact with any State B residents. Patient was not a citizen of state B when doctor operated on him. While patient collapsed while in state B, such a fact, if considered foreseeable, would make doctor amenable to jurisdiction in any state, as it could be assumed that his patients could travel to any state and then fall ill. This is too tenuous of a connection to be considered foreseeable under the constitutional analysis. Thus, Doctor did not have sufficient contacts with the forum to satisfy the constitutional limits of jurisdiction.
Even though Doctor did not have sufficient contacts to warrant jurisdiction, the remaining elements are discussed for completeness.
Relatedness of Contacts
The court looks to see whether defendant's contacts with the forum state are so extensive, as to find that the defendant is essentially at home in the forum state. If so, the court has general jurisdiction over the defendant and the defendant is amenable to a wider range of lawsuits in the state. Here, as stated above, Doctor did not have sufficient contacts with the state to show minimum contacts. Thus, he is not at home in state B.
If general jurisdiction does not exist, the court looks to see whether the defendant's particular contacts with the state relate to or give rise to the particular cause of action. If so, the court has specific jurisdiction over the defendant. Here, the cause of action arises out of doctor's negligence in implanting the valve. This took place in State A. There is nothing to indicate that doctor's negligence extended to state B, except that B collapsed there. Thus, there is no specific jurisdiction over Doctor in State B.
To determine whether jurisdiction is fair, courts look to a variety of public and private factors. Courts look to several factors, including the Plaintiff's interest in the chosen forum, a state's interest in providing redress for its citizens or for harms that occur in its state, and whether the exercise of jurisdiction would be so unfair as to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Here, the forum state does have an interest in providing redress for its citizens. Patient is currently domiciled in state B. Domicile is determined by someone's physical location combined with an intent to stay. Here, the facts state that Patient is physical in state B and wishes to remain there or the indefinite future. Thus, Patient is a domicile of State B. However, he was a citizen of state A when the negligence occurred. While some of the witnesses concerning the design of the valve may be in State B, the action against the doctor is for negligence. Thus, most of the evidence and witnesses, such as medical records, surgery staff, and nurses would be in State A. Thus, on the balance it is not fair to exercise jurisdiction in State B.
Based on the above analysis, since Doctor does not have any basis for traditional jurisdiction and since Doctor does not have such minimum contacts with the forum, as to make the exercise of jurisdiction not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, jurisdiction over D was not proper. Thus, the court properly granted his motion to dismiss.
Did the State Court Properly Deny Valvco's Motion to Dismiss?
Valvco filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction. A motion to dismiss on jurisdictional issues is proper when, viewing the facts in the most favorable light to the defendant, the plaintiff has failed to satisfy the elements of personal jurisdiction. Failure to object to personal jurisdiction before answering or in a party's first 12(b)(6) motion waives the issue. There is no indication that waiver occurred here.
Thus, the issue is whether the court in State B had personal jurisdiction over Valvco.
As stated above, personal jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to adjudicate claims involving a particular party. Traditionally, personal jurisdiction is based on three concepts: consent, presence, and domicile. Here, there is nothing in the facts indicating that Valvco consented to personal jurisdiction. Moreover, there is nothing in the facts indicating that it was served while he was in State B. For jurisdiction purposes, a corporation is domiciled in the state of incorporation and the state of its principal place of business. The corporation's principal place of business is where its headquarters are or where its officers are located. Here, Valvco is incorporated in State C and has its headquarters in state D. Thus, it is domiciled in State C and D. Since the lawsuit is brought in state B, there is no basis for personal jurisdiction based on Valvco's domicile.
Thus, the traditional bases for jurisdiction are not met.
The requirements for long-arm jurisdiction are described in detail above. In order to satisfy the constitutional requirements for personal jurisdiction, the defendant must have such minimum contacts with the forum state as to not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. In determining whether such minimum contacts are present, courts look to three things: 1) the level of contacts with the forum state, 2) the relatedness of those contacts to the cause of action, and 3) whether the exercise of jurisdiction would be fair, taking into account private and public considerations.
To determine whether a defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state to justify an exercise of personal jurisdiction, the court looks to two things: 1) whether the defendant purposefully availed himself to the forum state and 2) whether the exercise of jurisdiction by the forum state would be foreseeable. Here, Valvco used state B to design its valve. Thus, it availed itself of the labor force in State B and the privileges and benefits of operating a business location in state B. Thus, Valvco purposefully availed himself of State B. Moreover, the exercise must be foreseeable. Since the valve was designed in State B, it is foreseeable that someone injured by design of the valve may bring a lawsuit in state B for negligent design. Thus, Valvco has sufficient contacts for constitutional jurisdiction purposes.
Relatedness of Contacts
The court then looks to see whether defendant's contacts with the forum state are so extensive, as to find that the defendant is essentially at home in the forum state. If so, the court has general jurisdiction over the defendant and the defendant is amenable to a wider range of lawsuits in the state. Here, Valvco's only activity in state B from the facts was designing the valve. This is likely not continuous or systematic activity which rises to the level of Valvco being "at home" in the forum state. Thus, general jurisdiction does not exist.
If general jurisdiction does not exist, the court looks to see whether the defendant's particular contacts with the state relate to or give rise to the particular cause of action. If so, the court has specific jurisdiction over the defendant. Here, the cause of action arises out of Valvco's negligent design of the valve. The design took place in State B.
Thus, there is specific jurisdiction over Valvco.
To determine whether jurisdiction is fair, courts look to a variety of public and private factors. Courts look to several factors including Plaintiff's interest in the chosen forum, a state's interest in providing redress for its citizens or for harms that occur in its state, whether the exercise of jurisdiction would be so unfair as to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Here, the forum state does have an interest in providing redress for its citizens. As discussed above, Patient is currently domiciled in state B. Domicile is determined by someone's physical location combined with an intent to stay. Here, the facts state that Patient is physically in state B and wishes to remain there or the indefinite future. Thus, Patient is a domicile of State B. Moreover, witnesses concerning the design of the valve are likely in State B. State B also has an interest in ensuring products developed in its state are not defective to protect its residents and other foreseeable plaintiffs. Thus, on the balance it is fair to exercise jurisdiction in State B.
Based on the above analysis, since Valvco has such minimum contacts with the forum, as to make the exercise of jurisdiction not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, jurisdiction over Valvco is proper. Thus, the court properly denied its motion to dismiss.
Removal refers to a defendant's ability to remove a case brought initially in state court to federal court for adjudication. In order to remove a case, the case must have been one that could have originally been brought in federal court. Removal is proper to the federal district encompassing the location where the original action was filed in state court. Moreover, removal has to be timely--it has to be within 30 days of the last pleading giving rise to a removal action and cannot in any cases be more than a year since the filing of the lawsuit. Removal is not proper when a defendant is a resident of the state in which the action is brought and all defendants must join in the removal for it to be proper. If removal is not proper, then the plaintiff can file a motion to remand the case back to state court. A motion to remand must be filed within 30 days of the notice of removal.
Was Timing of Removal Proper
First, as a preliminary matter, removal has to be timely--it has to be within 30 days of the last pleading giving rise to a removal action and cannot in any cases be more than a year since the filing of the lawsuit. There is nothing in the facts to explicitly indicate that the timing issue here was violated. However, the motion for removal was filed after Doctor and Valvco moved the court to dismiss on an issue of personal jurisdiction and the decision on the motion was returned. This likely took more than 30 days. Thus, removal after the motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction may not be timely.
On these grounds alone, the court could grant Patient's motion for remand.
Is Any Defendant a Citizen of the State in Which the Action was Filed?
Removal is not proper when a defendant is a resident of the state in which the action is brought. Here, as explained above with respect to personal jurisdiction, Doctor is a resident of State A and Valvco is a resident of States C and D. Thus, this is not a bar to removal.
Did all Defendants Join in Removal?
All defendants must join in the removal for it to be proper. Here, the facts indicate that V filed a notice of removal in federal court. The facts do not indicate that D joined in this motion. However, at the time, D had been dismissed from the case. Thus, Doctor was no longer a defendant and was not required to join in the motion for removal. This was not a bar to removal.
Could the Case Originally Be Brought in Federal Court?
For removal to be proper, the case must be one that could have initially been brought in federal court. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. A federal court must have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims, meaning the court must have the power to adjudicate the dispute. The two most common bases for federal jurisdiction are federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction.
Federal Question Jurisdiction
Federal question jurisdiction refers to claims that are brought to enforce or decide a federal right. Here, the case brought was a defective design case against Valvco and a negligence claim against Doctor. These are both state law tort claims and do not invoke federal question jurisdiction. Thus, the case could not have been brought in federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.
Diversity Jurisdiction
For diversity jurisdiction to exist, there must be diversity between plaintiffs and defendants and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.
Diversity of Citizenship
Complete diversity between all parties is not required for diversity jurisdiction. However, there must be completed diversity between all Plaintiffs and all Defendants -- that is all Plaintiffs must be of diverse citizenship of all Defendants. Citizenship is determined at the time of filing of the action. For individuals, an individual can only have one citizenship--his or her domicile. Domicile is where a person is physically present with intent to permanently remain.
Here, the facts indicate that Doctor lives in State A. Thus, since no facts indicate he does not intend to remain there indefinitely, he is a citizen of State A.
Patient was a citizen of state A when the surgery occurred, but after he was injured he remained in state B with intent to stay there indefinitely. Thus, Patient became a citizen of state B. Plaintiff was a citizen of State B upon the filing of the lawsuit.
Corporations are considered domiciled where they have their principal place of business and where they are incorporated. The corporation's principal place of business is where his headquarters are or where his officers are located. Here, Valvco is incorporated in State C and has its headquarters in state D. Thus, it is domiciled in State C and D.
Looking at the parties, the case is Patient (B) v. Doctor (A) and Valvco (C and D). Thus, diversity exists for federal jurisdictional purposes because the Plaintiff is of diverse citizenship from all defendants.
Amount in Controversy
The amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction requirements looks at the amount from Plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint, irrespective of costs and fees. Here, the facts indicate that Patient sued Doctor and Valvco in state court for $100,000. Aggregation of amounts in controversy against more than one defendant is proper if each defendant is jointly and severally liable for the full amount. Thus, if Patient's case seeks joint and several liability from Doctor and Valvco, jurisdiction is proper. However, if Patient was seeking $50,000 from Doctor and $50,000 from Valvco individually, the amount in controversy would not be satisfied for jurisdiction. There are not enough facts to determine how the damages may be allocated.
Conclusion
Since there is diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy requirement is met, assuming joint and several liability, this is a case that could initially be brought in federal court under diversity jurisdiction.
Ultimate Conclusion
Since this is a case that could have originally been brought in federal court, Defendant is not a resident of the state in which the action was filed, and all defendants at the time joined in the removal, removal is proper. Thus, the motion to remand was properly denied. However, based on the timing of the notice of removal, if it occurred after 30 days from the last pleading raising a removable issue, Patient's motion to remand may be granted.
Did the Federal Court Properly Grant Patient's Motion for Summary Judgment?
Summary judgment is granted when there is no issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment often comes up along with issues of claim preclusion or issue preclusion.
Claim Preclusion
The first issue is whether summary judgment can be granted due to claim preclusion.
Claim preclusion occurs when an identical claim was already fully litigated on the merits to a final judgment, by a court with jurisdiction, between the same parties. This prevents subsequent actions deciding the same claim that was already decided.
Here, the facts indicate that another patient recently sued Valvco alleging defective design of the valve and obtained a final judgment on the merits after a trial. With respect to Valvco, assuming it is the same valve in question, this is the same issue that is at issue in the present case. Thus, the identity of issues was met. The facts indicate that there was a judgment in her favor after trial, so there is a final judgment on the merits. Federal courts do not require all appeals be exhausted before using claim preclusion. However, claim preclusion requires identity of parties. Here, the prior action involved another patient and Valvco, not this Patient and Valvco. Thus, the requirements for claim preclusion are not met.
Issue Preclusion
The second issue is whether summary judgment can be granted based on issue preclusion.
Issue preclusion prevents an issue that was already fully litigated on the merits from being re-litigated. The requirements for issue preclusion are 1) the same issue, 2) actually litigated and decided, 3) a final judgment on the merits, 4) the issue was essential to the judgment and 5) in the cases of non-mutual issue preclusion, fairness.
Same Issue
Here, the facts indicate that another patient recently sued Valvco alleging defective design of the valve and obtained a final judgment on the merits. With respect to Valvco, assuming it was the same valve, this is the same issue that is at issue in the present case. Thus, the identity of issues was met.
Actually Litigated and Decided
The facts indicate that there was a judgment in her favor after trial, so issue was actually litigated and decided.
Final Judgment on the Merits
The facts indicate that there was a judgment in her favor after trial, and it wasn't based on a lack of jurisdiction or other decisions not on the merits, so there is a final judgment on the merits. Federal courts do not require all appeals be exhausted before applying issue preclusion.
Essential to the Judgment
It appears the decision was essential to the judgment, as the other patient brought a defective design case and won. There are no other facts indicating there were separate or alternative grounds for the other patient's success in the suit. Thus, a finding of negligent design is essential to the judgment.
Fairness/Non-Mutual Issue Preclusion
Traditionally, issue preclusion required the same parties to the prior lawsuit assert issue preclusion or at least parties in privity with each other. If that was the case, then issue preclusion could not be used here for the reasons explained above with claim preclusion.
However, many courts now allow non-mutual issue preclusion to be used if it is fair. Here, Patient is trying to use non-mutual offensive issue preclusion--that is, a Plaintiff is using it as a sword against a Defendant in a later action. Courts typically allow this if Valvco had the same or similar motivations to defend the prior suit and if it would not be unfair or unjust. Here, both actions were for defective design. Thus, Valvco had a similar motive to defend this prior lawsuit. Therefore, it is not inequitable for Patient to use issue preclusion.
Since there is issue preclusion and Valvco is precluded from claiming it is not negligent, there is no issue of material fact with respect to Valvco's negligent design. Thus, summary judgment should be granted for Patient. The court was proper in granting the motion.