Donovan et al v. Rhode Island Hospital, Inc. et al

Filing 10

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER ON MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICTCOURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND AND/OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE AND/OR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION INLIEU OF ANSWERING (DOC. NO. 5) entered. Because venue does not lie in this district, the Court ALLOWS Defendants' Motion insofar as it seeks transfer to the District of Rhode Island. The remainder of the motion is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk shall forthwith transfer this case to the District of Rhode Island. RE 5 Motion to Transfer Case (Simeone, Maria)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

SARAH DONOVAN and MATTHEW
DONOVAN, Individually and as Personal
Representatives of the Estate of Kailyn
Donovan
Plaintiffs,
v.
RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL, INC.,
JONATHAN VALENTE, M.S., and
JAMES ZIEGLER, M.D.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 15-14010-LTS

ORDER ON MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND AND/OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE AND/OR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN
LIEU OF ANSWERING (DOC. NO. 5)
March 14, 2016
SOROKIN, J.
This case arises out of a sad and tragic course of events in which a seven-week-old child
named Kailyn Donovan, who suffered from the congenital heart defect known as hypoplastic left
heart syndrome, died at Rhode Island Hospital hours after, in response to a 911 call, she arrived
there via ambulance. Plaintiffs, the infant’s parents, assert an expected survival rate of between
fifty and ninety percent in similar circumstances. In their single-count Complaint, they assert
negligence on the part of the Hospital and certain doctors who treated Kailyn that day. All
Defendants reside in Rhode Island. The Defendants moved to dismiss or transfer venue to the
District of Rhode Island.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) provides that, generally, plaintiffs may bring a civil action in:

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the
State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action
is situation; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this
section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal
jurisdiction with respect to such action.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts venue under “subsection (b)(3).” Doc. No. 1 ¶ 4. This is incorrect.
That subsection applies only when the preceding subsections are inapplicable, and there is
neither doubt nor dispute that venue lies in the District of Rhode Island.
In their Memorandum of Law in Opposition, Plaintiffs instead assert venue under
subsection (b)(2). See Doc. No. 9 at 9 (“Venue is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
because ‘a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred’ in
Massachusetts.”). “In ruling on a motion [to dismiss for improper venue], ‘[a]ll well-pleaded
allegations in the complaint bearing on the venue question generally are taken as true, unless
contradicted by the defendant’s affidavits. A district court may examine facts outside the
complaint to determine whether its venue is proper.’” Turnley v. Banc of America Inv. Servs.,
Inc., 576 F. Supp. 2d 204, 212 (D. Mass. 2008) (quoting 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R.
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1352 (3d ed. 2004) (footnotes omitted)). Under that
test, subsection (b)(2) does not authorize venue in this district.
Simply put, Plaintiffs have brought a negligence claim against the defendants which
arises out of the acts and omissions that occurred during the time Kailyn was at the Rhode Island

2

Hospital. The Complaint, unlike the memorandum in opposition to the motion, is entirely devoid
of allegations concerning alleged misrepresentations in Massachusetts by one or more defendants
regarding their ability to handle cases such as Kailyn’s.
Because venue does not lie in this district, the Court ALLOWS Defendants’ Motion
insofar as it seeks transfer to the District of Rhode Island. The remainder of the motion is
DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk shall forthwith transfer this case to the District of Rhode Island.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Leo T. Sorokin
United States District Judge

3