Blackwell v. Sierra View District Hospital
ORDER that Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Doc. 14 ) is granted. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/22/2013. (KMG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Marcellus B. Blackwell,
No. CV12-0462 PHX DGC
Sierra View District Hospital,
Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against Defendant on March 6, 2012. Doc. 1. On
November 6, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Doc. 14.
Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion within the time limit set forth in the rules of
procedure. See LRCiv 7.2(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). The Court issued an order giving
Plaintiff until February 8, 2013 to file a response. Doc. 18. No response to the motion
has been filed. The Court will dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction. Ziegler v. Indian
River Cnty., 64 F.3d 470, 473 (9th Cir.1995). Because the Court is resolving the motion
to dismiss without an evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff “need make only a prima facie
showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion.” Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d
1495, 1498 (9th Cir.1995). That is, Plaintiff “need only demonstrate facts that if true
would support jurisdiction over [Defendant].” Id. at 1498; see Bancroft & Masters, Inc.
v. Augusta Nat'l, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir.2000).
In considering whether Plaintiff has satisfied this standard, the Court must apply
Arizona's long-arm statute, which permits an exercise of personal jurisdiction to the
maximum extent permitted by due process. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.2(a); see Terracom v.
Valley Nat'l Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 559 (9th Cir.1995). Therefore, absent traditional bases
for personal jurisdiction (i.e., physical presence, domicile, or consent), the Court must
consider whether Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with Arizona such that the
exercise of personal jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice. See Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
If a defendant's contacts with Arizona are substantial, or continuous and
systematic, the Court may assert general jurisdiction over the defendant even if Plaintiff's
claims are unrelated to those contacts. Haisten v. Grass Valley Med. Reimbursement
Fund, Ltd., 784 F.2d 1392, 1396 (9th Cir.1986). Plaintiff has made no showing that
Defendant's contacts with Arizona are substantial, or continuous and systematic.
Alternatively, the Court may assert specific jurisdiction over Defendant if Plaintiff
demonstrates that (1) Defendant purposefully availed itself of the privileges of
conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its
laws, or purposely directed conduct at the forum that has effects in the forum, (2) the
claims arise out of or result from Defendant's forum-related activities, and (3) the
exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. See Bancroft, 223 F.3d at 1086. Plaintiff has made
no showing that Defendant, a hospital located in California, purposefully availed itself of
the privileges of conducting activities in Arizona or directed conduct toward Arizona.
Plaintiff has failed to establish general or specific personal jurisdiction over
Defendant. The Court therefore will grant the motion to dismiss.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction (Doc. 14) is granted. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action.
Dated this 22nd day of February, 2013.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?