Jones v. Williams et al

Filing 25

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman denying 6 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CHERYL JONES, 12 13 v. Plaintiff(s), ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. C 09-2880 BZ ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION 14 BARRY WILLIAMS, et al., 15 16 17 Defendant(s). This case presents a question of first impression in an 18 area of law that remains somewhat unsettled: does a defendant's 19 continuous provision of medical care across state borders over 20 the telephone subject the defendant to jurisdiction in the 21 patient's home state? See generally Dave R. Bonelli, 22 Annotation, In Personam Jurisdiction, Under Long-Arm Statute, 23 Over Nonresident Physician, Dentist, or Hospital in Medical 24 Malpractice Action, 25 A.L.R. 4th 706 (1983). 25 Plaintiff has sued defendants Williams and Ritzman, both 26 citizens of New Mexico, for medical malpractice and related 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 claims.1 Plaintiff was a resident of Hawaii in 2000 when she 2 met Williams, a licensed therapist, in New Mexico and began 3 receiving therapy and counseling from him. Plaintiff moved to Between 4 California in 2002 and last year returned to Hawaii. 5 2000 and 2006, Williams provided weekly telephonic 6 psychotherapy and dream counseling to plaintiff from his home 7 in Taos, New Mexico. On several occasions, Williams traveled 8 to California, at plaintiff's request, and provided treatment 9 to plaintiff and others at plaintiff's California residence.2 10 Between April 2005 and June 2006, Ritzman, Williams's wife, 11 provided weekly Shamanic counseling to plaintiff over the 12 telephone. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for 13 lack of personal jurisdiction or in the alternative to transfer 14 venue. 15 The parties agree that California's long arm statute, 16 California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10, allows the 17 exercise of personal jurisdiction on any basis consistent with 18 the federal constitution. To demonstrate that California has 19 personal jurisdiction over Williams and Ritzman, plaintiff need 20 only make a prima facie showing. See Caruth v. Int'l The 21 Psychoanalytical Ass'n, 59 F.3d 126, 128 (9th Cir. 1995). 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 All parties have consented to my jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 636(c) for all proceedings, including entry of final judgment. Although Williams alleges that plaintiff's foundation invited him to California, I must construe this conflict in plaintiff's favor. In ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, "uncontroverted allegations in [the] complaint must be taken as true, and conflicts between the facts contained in the parties' affidavits must be resolved in [plaintiff's] favor." Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1019 (9th Cir. 2002). 2 2 1 exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant 2 by a forum state is not inconsistent with due process if the 3 nonresident defendant has certain "minimum contacts" with the 4 forum "such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 5 `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" 6 Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) quoting 7 Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). 8 Courts may exercise either general or specific Helicopteros 9 jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. 10 Nacionales de Columbia S.S. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 nn. 8-9 11 (1984). Plaintiff contends that this court has general and 12 specific jurisdiction over both defendants. 13 14 1. Plaintiff has Failed to Establish General Jurisdiction. General jurisdiction applies where a defendant's 15 activities in the state are "substantial" or "continuous and 16 systematic," even if the cause of action is unrelated to those 17 activities. Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Tech. Assoc., 557 F.2d Where general jurisdiction is 18 1280, 1287 (9th Cir. 1977). 19 inappropriate, a court may still exercise specific jurisdiction 20 if the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum 21 state in relation to the plaintiff's cause of action. Id. In 22 Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat. Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 23 1086 (9th Cir. 2000) the court stated the standard is "fairly 24 high and requires that the defendant's contacts be of the sort 25 that approximate physical presence."3 26 27 28 The factors to consider for general jurisdiction include "whether the defendant makes sales, solicits or engages in business in the state, serves the state's markets, designates an agent for service of process, holds a license, or 3 3 (Internal citations 1 omitted). 2 Williams's contacts with the state of California are not Williams provided weekly 3 sufficient for general jurisdiction. 4 telephonic counseling sessions to plaintiff between 2000 and 5 2006. He traveled to California three times at plaintiff's For 6 invitation to counsel her and other California residents. 7 eleven to fifteen days between 2000 and 2006 Williams was a 8 professor in residence at the Pacifica Graduate Institute in 9 Carpinteria, California.4 10 These contacts are plainly insufficient to "approximate Bancroft, 223 F.3d at 1086. Aside from a 11 physical presence." 12 handful of seminars and his teaching position, Williams 13 conducted no business in the state of California during the 14 relevant time period. Williams is not licensed nor does he 15 hold himself out to be a licensed California physician. 16 Plaintiff does not allege that Williams regularly conducts 17 business in California, that he serves the state's markets, or 18 that he has an agent for service of process in the state. 19 Most of the contact with California took place over the Plaintiff has cited no authority for the proposition By 20 phone. 21 that phone calls can give rise to general jurisdiction. 22 their very nature, phone calls do not approximate physical 23 presence. 24 Ritzman's contacts with California are even more Between 2000 and 2006 she only 25 attenuated than Williams's. 26 27 28 is incorporated there." 4 Bancroft, 223 F.3d at 1086. None of plaintiff's claims arise from this contact. 4 1 visited California for occasional week long vacations. 2 never traveled to California for business. The bulk of She 3 Ritzman's contact with California occurred telephonically, when 4 she consulted with plaintiff on a weekly basis between April 5 2005 and June 2006. For the same reasons as Williams, 6 Ritzman's contacts with California are not sufficient for 7 general jurisdiction. 8 9 2. Plaintiff has Established Specific Jurisdiction. In order to find specific jurisdiction: "1) the 10 nonresident defendant must have purposefully availed himself of 11 the privilege of conducting activities in the forum by some 12 affirmative act or conduct; 2) plaintiff's claim must arise out 13 of or result from the defendant's forum-related activities; and 14 3) exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable." 15 Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 620-21 (9th Cir. 1985). 16 17 A. Plaintiff has Shown Purposeful Availment. Roth v. To prove the first element in a tort case, plaintiff must 18 show "purposeful direction," defined by the "three-part 19 `effects' test traceable to the Supreme Court's decision in 20 Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)." Schwarzenegger v. Ford The 21 Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004). 22 defendant must have 1) committed an intentional act, 2) 23 expressly aimed at the forum state, which 3) causes harm that 24 the defendant knew was likely to be suffered in the forum 25 state. 26 Id. Under this test, I find that plaintiff has alleged facts In 2000, the parties met 27 sufficient to establish jurisdiction. 28 at a conference in defendants' hometown of Taos, New Mexico. 5 1 Shortly thereafter, plaintiff and Williams began a doctor2 patient relationship that lasted over six years. In 2002, 3 plaintiff moved to California and continued calling Williams on 4 a weekly basis for psychotherapy and dream analysis. On 2 or 3 5 occasions Williams came to California at plaintiff's request to 6 conduct therapy sessions. At those therapy sessions, Williams 7 provided dream analysis and psychotherapy to plaintiff and 8 others. Ritzman's contacts are not quite as numerous. Her 9 primary contact with plaintiff consisted of weekly Shamanic 10 counseling sessions over the course of fourteen months. 11 Both defendants committed intentional acts within the 12 "specialized meaning" of the Calder effects test. 13 Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 806. 14 is very low. See Id. The standard for this element Both defendants intentionally spoke to Williams intentionally 15 the plaintiff on the telephone. 16 traveled to California and performed dream analysis at 17 plaintiff's request. 18 Plaintiff has also shown that defendants "expressly aimed" Id. From 2002 until 19 their intentional acts at California. 20 2006 Williams treated plaintiff while she was California at 21 least two times per week. Williams knew where the plaintiff As the 22 lived, and continued to accept payment for treatment. 23 court in Schwarzenegger wrote, "the `express aiming' analysis 24 depends, to a significant degree, on the type of tort or other 25 wrongful conduct at issue." Id. at 807. The complaint plainly 26 states that Williams specifically directed his treatment 27 towards plaintiff, and it was the abuse of this relationship 28 that gives rise to this cause of action. 6 The same analysis 1 applies to Ritzman's telephonic treatment of plaintiff. Both 2 defendants directed their activities towards the plaintiff in 3 California over a continuous and sustained period of time. 4 The third element of the Calder test is similarly met. 5 Williams must have known that for a four year period and for 6 over four hundred treatment sessions, that plaintiff would have 7 felt any benefit or harm in California. Ritzman too must have 8 known that if the treatment was detrimental to plaintiff, she 9 would feel the harm in California. 10 Defendants' reliance on Prince v. Urban, 49 Cal. App. 4th 11 1056 (4th Dist. 1996), and Wright v. Yackley, 459 F.2d 287 (9th 12 Cir. 1972), is misplaced. Both of those cases found personal 13 jurisdiction in the forum state lacking where the primary 14 medical care was rendered in the doctor's home state but 15 follow-up care occurred in the forum state. For example, in 16 Prince, the California plaintiff was referred to the defendant 17 Illinois doctor for treatment of her headaches. After 18 returning to California, the plaintiff had numerous phone 19 consultations with the defendant, for which she paid. The 20 defendant also mailed medications directly to the plaintiff and 21 arranged to have the plaintiff's prescriptions filled in 22 California. The court affirmed a dismissal for lack of 23 personal jurisdiction because "the doctor-patient relationship 24 was not the result of any `systematic or continuing effort . . 25 . to provide services' to be `felt' in California." 26 1064 quoting Wright, 459 F.2d at 290. 27 This case is distinguishable from Wright and Prince for Id. at 28 one principal reason; these defendants did engage in a 7 1 "systematic or continuing effort" to provide services that 2 would be felt in California. Unlike the plaintiffs in Wright 3 and Prince who traveled out of state for a discrete medical 4 procedure, and received follow-up treatment in their home 5 states, plaintiff here received her principal treatment during 6 six years of twice weekly telephonic therapy and counseling 7 while she was in California, for four of the years, and in 8 Hawaii for two. The alleged malpractice occurred, in part, not 9 because of a discrete act by a defendant, but because of a 10 breach of a relationship plaintiff alleges was one of trust, 11 built over many treatment sessions, presumably all of equal 12 importance. The regularity, frequency, and quality of the 13 contact between Williams and plaintiff sets this case apart 14 from Wright and Prince.5 15 Williams's trips to California, specifically those where 16 he came at plaintiff's request, further set this case apart 17 from Wright and Prince. Unlike the defendants in Wright and 18 Prince, Williams conducted business while physically present in 19 the forum state. The trips to California and the treatment 20 rendered to plaintiff during those trips, partially give rise 21 to the plaintiff's claims and further show that Williams made a 22 continuous and sustained effort to cause effects in the forum 23 state. 24 /// 25 26 27 28 A number of courts in recent years have sustained jurisdiction over doctors who had systematic or continuous contacts with a forum state. See Kennedy v. Freeman, 919 F.2d 126 (10th Cir. 1990), Walsh v. Chez, 418 F. Supp. 2d 781 (W.D. Penn. 2006), Ray v. Heilman, 660 F. Supp. 122 (D. Kan. 1987). 8 5 1 2 B. The Claims Arise out of the Forum Related Activities. Plaintiff claims that most of defendants' tortuous conduct 3 took place during telephone conversations, and that those 4 telephone conversations are defendants' primary contacts with 5 California. Further, the therapy that Williams provided to 6 plaintiff while in California forms part of the basis for the 7 complaint. 8 Defendants argue that plaintiff's damage claims primarily 9 stem from a fraudulent real estate transaction regarding a 10 piece of real property located in New Mexico. Plaintiff argues 11 that her loss on this transaction is just one component of the 12 damages she seeks, that defendants improperly induced her to 13 enter into this transaction, and that most of the damages she 14 suffered were a result of the alleged medical malpractice, not 15 the real estate transaction. Because I must resolve any 16 conflicts in plaintiff's favor, I find that her damage claims 17 are sufficiently related to defendants' forum related 18 activities. 19 C. It is Reasonable for the Defendants to Defend 20 Themselves in California. 21 With respect to the burden on defendants, Williams 22 traveled to California to treat plaintiff and others and to 23 teach. It does not appear to be terribly burdensome to require 24 him to travel to California to defend himself in an action 25 partially arising out of some of those contacts. 26 Ritzman presents a closer case. Her contacts with 27 California were not nearly as numerous or continuous as 28 Williams. Nevertheless, she did treat plaintiff over the phone 9 1 for a period of fourteen months while plaintiff lived in 2 California. Ritzman shares the same counsel as Williams and is On balance, it does 3 defending against most of the same claims. 4 not appear to be burdensome for Ritzman to defend herself here. 5 Because I have found that plaintiff has established 6 specific jurisdiction, defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED. 7 The motion to transfer venue is also DENIED as defendants have 8 not made a showing that New Mexico would be the more convenient 9 forum. Defendants must file an answer by October 12, 2009. 10 Dated: September 30, 2009 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\JONES v. WILLIAMS\Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction v 3.wpd Bernard Zimmerman United States Magistrate Judge

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?