Wang v. Thomson et al

Filing 23

ORDER by Judge Beth Labson Freeman granting 14 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

CHARLES WANG,

Case No. 14-cv-02388-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

TAYLOR THOMSON, et al.,
Defendants.

[Re: ECF 14]

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT
MGH’S MOTION TO DISMISS; AND (2)
DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

12
Defendant Massachusetts General Hospital (“MGH” or “Defendant”) brings this Motion to

13
14

Dismiss Plaintiff Charles Wang’s (“Wang” or “Plaintiff”) Complaint. Plaintiff brings a wrongful

15

death suit against MGH and individual Defendants arising out of the death of his mother. MGH

16

seeks dismissal, arguing that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. The Court agrees, and

17

DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint.

18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

A. Procedural History

20

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on May 23, 2014. (ECF 1) MGH filed the instant Motion to

21

Dismiss (“Mot.”) on June 18, 2014. (ECF 14, 15) Plaintiff filed an Opposition (“Opp.”) on July 2,

22

2014 (ECF 18), and further requested that the Court extend time on which the motion could be

23

heard. MGH timely replied on July 7, 2014. (ECF 19)

24

B. Factual Allegations

25

Plaintiff is a resident of Santa Clara County, California. (Compl. ¶ 1) He alleges that, on

26

April 28, 2014, his mother was admitted to MGH despite having “no fever, no pain and no reason

27

to be admitted to MGH through their emergency room.” (Compl. at p. 3) Plaintiff states that he

28

advised her against being hospitalized. (Id.) He avers a number of wrongs allegedly committed by

1

staff at MGH, including that his mother was given “harsh, painful, unnecessary and harmful

2

treatments.” (Id. at p. 4) He alleges that his mother “suffered physically [and] mentally,” and that

3

her doctors “wanted to jeopardize her health and deterred her [will to] live.” (Id. at p. 4) Plaintiff

4

further alleges that, at some point while his mother was unconscious, “they stopped providing her

5

with water,” and “[a]s a result, she passed several days later.” (Id.)1
II.

6

LEGAL STANDARD
Once a party challenges the Court’s jurisdiction over it through a Rule 12(b)(2) motion to

7
8

dismiss, the Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction. See, e.g.,

9

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800-01 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Scott v.
Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating that a plaintiff must “come forward with

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

facts, by affidavit or otherwise, supporting personal jurisdiction”).

12

When the Motion is based on written materials, and not an evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff

13

“need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d 797,

14

800. Plaintiff cannot “simply rest on the bare allegations of [his] complaint,” Amba Mktg. Sys.,

15

Inc. v. Jobar Int’l, Inc., 551 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir. 1977), but “uncontroverted allegations in the

16

complaint must be taken as true.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d 797, 800.
In the absence of a specific statutory provision conferring jurisdiction, federal courts apply

17
18

the personal jurisdiction laws of the state in which they sit. California’s long-arm jurisdictional

19

statute is “coextensive with federal due process requirements.” Panavision Int’l, LP v. Toeppen,

20

141 F.3d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir. 1998). In order for the Court to exercise jurisdiction, a defendant

21

must have sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum state, such that the exercise of

22

jurisdiction “does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co.

23

v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).

24
1

25
26
27
28

It is difficult for the Court to understand the timeline of Plaintiff’s Complaint, as he alleges that
his mother was admitted to MGH on April 28, 2014 (Compl. p. 3), but also alleges that “[d]ays
before Memorial Day, 2011” doctors “drugged her,” and while she was unconscious, “on or about
May 30th, they stopped providing her with water,” leading to her passing. (Id. at 4) From the face
of the Complaint, the Court is uncertain of the date of Plaintiff’s mother’s passing, or the
circumstances that caused it. But, as Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his
Complaint to give him the benefit of any doubt. Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 899 n.2 (9th Cir.
2001).
2

III.

1

DISCUSSION

2

A. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

3

In its Motion to Dismiss, MGH states that it has a principal place of business in Boston,

4

Massachusetts, and argues that Plaintiff “has failed to allege any facts in his complaint which

5

support or provide basis for personal jurisdiction over MGH in California.” (Mot. at 3)2 Plaintiff, a

6

resident of this district, states that he has filed suit in California because he has “attempted to get

7

attorney help numerous times in Boston, Massachusetts, without any success.” (Compl. p. 2) In his

8

Opposition, he reiterates that law firms in Boston “told me I should I should (sic) file the case,”

9

but “[n]one would take the case making it not feasible to do it.” (Opp. at 2)
Plaintiff has provided the Court no information by which the Court could exercise personal

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

jurisdiction over MGH, a non-resident Defendant. Plaintiff has not shown that MGH is subject to

12

general jurisdiction, which requires evidence of “continuous and systematic general business

13

contacts” with the state. See, e.g., Sleepy Lagoon, Ltd. v. Tower Grp., Inc., 809 F. Supp. 2d 1300,

14

1308 (N.D. Okla. 2011). Plaintiff further has not shown that MGH is subject to specific

15

jurisdiction, which in this circuit is determined by a three-prong test:

16

20

(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his
activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or
resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully
avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum,
thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws;
(2) the claim must be one that arises out of or relates to the
defendant’s forum-related activities;
(3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and
substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.

21

Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d 797, 802. Plaintiff has not shown that MGH “purposefully directed” its

22

activities at California – in fact, his Complaint states the opposite: it alleges that a patient, in a

23

Massachusetts hospital (Compl. p. 3), was harmed by employees who Plaintiff avers are citizens

24

of Massachusetts. (Compl. p. 1-2) That Plaintiff himself is a citizen of California does not confer

25

jurisdiction upon this Court over a non-resident Defendant when Plaintiff alleges that the

17
18
19

26
27
28

2

Defendant requests that this Court take Judicial Notice of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF 16)
The Complaint, however, is the operative pleading before the Court, and is treated as such, making
judicial notice of the Complaint unnecessary.
3

1

Defendant committed tortious activity against another person in another state. See Walden v.

2

Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1123 (2014) (“Due process requires that a defendant be haled into court in

3

a forum State based on his own affiliation with the State, not based on the ‘random, fortuitous, or

4

attenuated’ contacts he makes by interacting with other persons affiliated with the State.”).

5

Even if Plaintiff showed that MGH caused injury to a California resident,3 the operative

6

question for determining personal jurisdiction is whether MGH had any contact with the forum.

7

Walden, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1122. (“[T]he plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant

8

and the forum.”) Plaintiff has not shown that MGH had any contact with California. As such, this

9

Court lacks personal jurisdiction over MGH, and the Court GRANTS its Motion to Dismiss. The
Court, however, will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his Complaint in order to allege

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

facts that would show jurisdiction over MGH and all other non-resident Defendants.

12

B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time

13

In his Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff asked this Court to “extend

14

this hearing until all Defendants are served.” (Opp. at 2) The Court construes this as a Motion for

15

Continuance of Hearing, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-7. As the hearing in this matter was

16

vacated, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED as moot. The Court’s job at this stage is to evaluate the

17

sufficiency of the allegations in the Complaint against MGH, the party seeking dismissal. This

18

determination is unaffected by the Plaintiff’s inability to serve the other Defendants.
IV.

19

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED as to MGH, with leave to

20
21

amend to cure the deficiencies as outlined about. Should Plaintiff choose to file an amended

22

complaint, he shall do so no fewer than 28 days from the issue of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: August 11, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
3

28

Plaintiff does not plead that his mother was a resident of California, only that he is (Compl. ¶ 1),
and does not allege in his Complaint that MGH committed any harm against him.
4