Miller v. Christus St. Michael Health Systems et al
ORDER denying as moot 4 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on March 6, 2017. (mll)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
RONITA MILLER, next friend
of Rashaad Miller, a minor
Case No. 4:16-cv-4077
CHRISTUS ST. MICHAEL HEALTH
SYSTEMS 1 and SMITHS MEDICAL,
a subsidiary of Smiths Medical ASD, Inc.
Before the Court is Defendant CHRISTUS St. Michael Health Systems’ (“CHRISTUS”)
Motion to Dismiss Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff Ronita Miller
filed a response. (ECF No. 9).
On June 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed this medical malpractice case in the circuit court of Miller
County, Arkansas. On August 3, 2016, CHRISTUS filed the present motion, asking the state
court to dismiss the case due to lack of personal jurisdiction. On August 5, 2016, Defendant
Smiths Medical (“Smiths”) removed this action to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division. Upon removal, the present motion carried
over to the Court’s docket, and Plaintiff responded to the motion on August 26, 2016. (ECF No.
On October 10, 2016, CHRISTUS filed a second motion to dismiss, styled “Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue, or to Transfer Venue,” in which
it asserts a similar argument regarding personal jurisdiction, as well as an argument on venue.
CHRISTUS St. Michael Health Systems asserts that it was improperly named in Plaintiff’s complaint, and that its
correct name is “CHRISTUS Health Ark-La-Tex.” For consistency, the Court will nonetheless refer to it as
CHRISTUS St. Michael Health Systems.
(ECF No. 14).
The Court finds CHRISTUS’s first motion to dismiss to be moot, as its
arguments on personal jurisdiction rely predominately on state authority, and CHRISTUS has
filed a second motion to dismiss based on federal authority.
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that CHRISTUS’s Motion to Dismiss Due
to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (ECF No. 4) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. The Court will
issue a separate order on CHRISTUS’s second motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) at a later date. 2
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 6th day of March, 2017.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge
Plaintiff did not respond to CHRISTUS’s second motion to dismiss, and the time for her to do so has passed.
However, the Court notes that several of Plaintiff’s arguments in her response to the first motion to dismiss were
based on federal authority. When the Court makes its determination on the second motion to dismiss, it will
consider Plaintiff’s arguments from her response to the first motion to dismiss to the extent that they also apply to
the second motion.
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?