Concert Health Plan Insurance Company

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 3/11/2010:Mailed notice(mpj, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS E A S T ER N DIVISION

C O N C E R T HEALTH PLAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. H O U S T O N NORTHWEST PARTNERS, LTD. d / b / a HOUSTON NORTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

N o . 09 C 7550

M EM O R AN D U M OPINION AND ORDER O n March 8, 2010, defendant Houston Northwest Partners, Ltd. d / b / a Houston Northwest Medical Center ("Houston") informed me that i t s partners were both incorporated in the State of Delaware and h a d their principal places of business in Texas. In its complaint,

p l a i n t i f f Concert Health Plan Insurance Company ("Concert") stated t h a t its parent company is incorporated in Delaware and that its p r i n c i p a l place of business is in Illinois. Like Houston, then,

C o n c e r t has failed to give this court the information it needs to d e t e r m i n e Concert's citizenship. It is not clear if Concert itself

i s a corporation, in which case it is a citizen of the state of its incorporation and its principal place of business, 28 U.S.C. §

1 3 3 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) , or whether it is an unincorporated company, in which c a s e its citizenship is the citizenship of each of its members. Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. Titan Tire Corp., 398 F.3d 879, 881 n.1

(7th

Cir.

2004)

(unincorporated

entities

are

citizens

of

every

s t a t e of which any member is a citizen). determine infor ma t i o n longe r, I whether from will complete diversity Rather than

Thus, the court cannot exists delay without this ruling even more any if

Concert. turn to

personal

jurisdiction

because,

C o n c e r t were able to show that diversity jurisdiction exists here, t h e r e is no personal jurisdiction over Houston. See, e.g., Ruhrgas

A G v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) (federal system allows f o r "leeway" in determining order in which district court addresses s u b j e c t matter and personal jurisdiction). A federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction has personal j u r i s d i c t i o n over the defendant if the state in which it sits would h a v e such jurisdiction. 1272, 1275 (7th Cir. RAR, Inc. v. Turner Diesel, Ltd., 107 F.3d 1997). The Illinois long-arm statute

s t r e t c h e s as far as the due process clauses of the Illinois and f e d e r a l Constitutions permit. al s o exercise jurisdiction on 735 ILCS 5/2-209(c) ("A court may any other basis now or hereafter

p e r m i t t e d by the Illinois Constitution and the Constitution of the United States."). Accordingly, I need only consider whether

e x e r c i s i n g personal jurisdiction over Houston would be proper under t h e Illinois and federal due process requirements. C o r p . v. Coco, 302 F.3d 707, 714-15 (7th Cir. 2002). Hyatt Int'l Under the Due

P r o c e s s Clause of the Illinois Constitution, a court may exercise j u r i s d i c t i o n "when it is fair, just, and reasonable to require a 2

nonresident defendant to defend an action in Illinois, considering the quality and nature of the defendant's acts which occur in

I l l i n o i s or which affect interests located in Illinois." 715 (quoting Rollins v. Ellwood, 565 N.E.2d 1302, 1316

Id. at (Ill.

1990)).

Although the Illinois Supreme Court has declined to find

t h a t the reach of the state and federal constitutions is identical, i t has observed that "in almost all cases, when federal due process concerns regarding personal jurisdiction are satisfied, so are

I l l i n o i s due process concerns regarding personal jurisdiction." Keller v. Henderson, 834 N.E.2d 930, 941 (Ill. 2005). T h e exercise of personal jurisdiction satisfies federal due process requirements when the defendant has "certain minimum

c o n t a c t s with [the state] such that the maintenance of the suit d o e s not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial j u s t i ce.'" Internat'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 "The

( 1 9 4 5 ) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)).

c r u c i a l inquiry is whether the defendant's contacts with the state are such that he should reasonably Med. anticipate Inc. v. being Am. haled into

court

there."

Internat'l

Group,

Arbitration

A s s o c . , 312 F.3d 833, 846 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 (1985)). In addition, the

d e f e n d a n t must have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of c o n d u c t i n g activities in the forum state, invoking the benefits and p r o t e c t i o n s of its laws. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474-75. 3

Because

a

defendant's

contacts

with

a

forum

state

may

be

r e l a t e d or unrelated to the lawsuit at issue, there are two types of personal jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction refers to

j u r i s d i c t i o n over a defendant in a suit arising out of, or related to, the defendant's contacts with the forum. Helicopteros

N a c i o n a l e s de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n.8 (1984). Where a court seeks to assert specific must jurisdiction have over a

nonresident

defendant,

the

defendant

"purposefully

d i r e c t e d " his activities at residents of the state and the suit m u s t involve alleged injuries that "arise out of or those activities. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 472. relate to" "General

j u r i s di ct i o n , meanwhile, is for suits neither arising out of nor r e l a t e d to the defendant's contacts, and it is permitted only where the defendant with has the "continuous forum. and RAR, systematic 107 F.3d general at 1277 business (quoting

contacts"

H e l i c o p t e r o s , 466 U.S. at 414 n.8)). not put forward any Thus, facts I to will

Concert admits that it has a on finding of general specific

support focus

jurisdiction.

Concert's

j u r i s d i c t i o n argument. Having reviewed the pertinent facts, I cannot find the

r e q u i s i t e minimum contacts or purposeful availment on the part of Hous ton. Nor can I conclude that Houston has "purposefully Houston is

d i r e c t e d " its activities at the residents of Illinois.

a Texas hospital and the patient it treated also lives in Texas. 4

The Houston contract, the only contract at issue in this case to w h i c h Houston is a party, was negotiated and entered into in the s t a t e of Texas. is not an Further, that contract was made with PHCS, which company. Therefore, Houston cannot have

Illinois

r e a s o na bl y anticipated being haled into court in Illinois.

Concert

w o u l d have me focus solely on the contract between it and PHCS, but t h a t is not appropriate in light of the fact that Houston was not a p a r t y to that contract. There are no facts which would support a

f i n d i n g that Houston sought patients from Illinois or otherwise had t i e s to Illinois. to personal As a result, I find that Houston is not subject in this court. Houston's motion to

jurisdiction

d i s m i s s is granted.

ENTER ORDER:

____________________________ Elaine E. Bucklo United States District Judge

D a t e d : March 11, 2010

5