Bittner v. Wright Medical Group, Inc. et al

Filing 12

ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on March 1, 2018. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 11, is ADOPTED. Defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1-1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint within fourteen days of the entry of this order. (KML, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 01 March, 2018 09:38:19 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
MICHAEL BITTNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP, INC. and
TORNIER, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:17-cv-04241-SLD-JEH

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 4, and the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 11, recommending that the motion to dismiss be
granted and that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice. For the following reasons,
the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED,
and Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Michael Bittner was the surgical recipient of an allegedly defective elbow
prosthetic device manufactured by Defendant Tornier, Inc., which later merged into Defendant
Wright Medical Group, Inc. Compl. ¶¶ 5–10, Not. Removal Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff filed
a products liability suit in state court, which Defendants removed to this Court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction. Not. Removal, ECF No. 1. Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) on the ground that this Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over Defendants. Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 4. In response, Plaintiff argues the Court
may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants, but if the Court finds to the contrary, he
requests leave to file an amended complaint after limited jurisdictional discovery. Resp. Mot.
1

Dismiss, ECF No. 9. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley and a
Report and Recommendation was entered. Report & Recommendation (hereinafter “R&R”),
ECF No. 11. Neither party filed an objection.
DISCUSSION
When a magistrate judge considers a pretrial matter dispositive of a party’s claim or
defense, he must enter a recommended disposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). Parties may object
within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the recommended disposition. Id. 72(b)(2).
The district judge considers de novo the portions of the recommended disposition that were
properly objected to, and may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition, or return it
to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Id. 72(b)(3). If no objection, or only partial
objection, is made, the district judge reviews the unobjected portions of the recommendation for
clear error only. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
In reviewing Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Magistrate Judge’s role was to look to
Illinois law to determine whether Plaintiff has established a prima facie case of personal
jurisdiction. See Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773, 782 (7th
Cir. 2003) (explaining that the prima facie standard applies where the district court rules on a
motion to dismiss based on the submission of written materials); Hyatt Int’l Corp. v. Coco, 302
F.3d 707, 713 (7th Cir. 2002) (noting that a federal court sitting in diversity must look to the
forum state’s law of personal jurisdiction). The Magistrate Judge was to evaluate whether
Defendants have the requisite contacts with Illinois such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction
would “not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Hyatt, 302 F.3d at
715–16 (quotation marks omitted) (noting that there is “no operative difference” between Illinois
constitutional and federal constitutional limits on personal jurisdiction). The Magistrate Judge

2

was to resolve all disputes of relevant fact in Plaintiff’s favor. See Purdue Research Found., 338
F.3d at 782. Because Plaintiff conceded that the Court does not have general personal
jurisdiction over Defendants, the Magistrate Judge limited his inquiry to whether the Court may
exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants. R & R 2.
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the motion to dismiss be granted because the
Court may not exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Id. at 5, 8. The sole
allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint connecting Defendants to Illinois is that they conduct business
in Illinois. Id. at 4–5, 8. This allegation is insufficient to demonstrate that the suit arose out of or
relates to Defendants’ contacts with Illinois, as is required for specific personal jurisdiction. Id.
at 4–5. The Magistrate Judge also recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s request for limited
jurisdictional discovery because Plaintiff has not made a threshold showing of personal
jurisdiction. Id. at 8–9. Finally, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint be
dismissed without prejudice and that Plaintiff be allowed to file an amended complaint. Id. at 9.
The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation does not
contain clear error. See Johnson, 170 F.3d at 739. After careful and independent review, the
Court concurs with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his
Report and Recommendation. See Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 760 (7th
Cir. 2009) (“If no party objects to the magistrate judge’s action, the district judge may simply
accept it.”).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No.
11, is ADOPTED. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s

3

complaint, ECF No. 1-1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court grants Plaintiff
leave to amend his complaint within fourteen days of the entry of this order.
Entered this 1st day of March, 2018.
s/ Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4