United States District Court, D. Oregon
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
A. RUSSO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Yampa Valley Medical Center ("YVMC") and Dr. Laila
Wilber B. Powers ("Dr. Powers") move to dismiss
plaintiff Dennis Russell Hooper's complaint pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). Oral argument was held on June 28,
2018. For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion
to dismiss should be granted.
February 8, 2016, plaintiff visited YVMC's emergency room
in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Plaintiff complained of a
severely swollen upper right leg. At the time, Dr. Powers was
the attending emergency room physician. Dr. Powers ordered
blood tests and an ultrasound to determine the cause of the
swelling. No x-rays were taken. Dr. Powers diagnosed
plaintiff with deep vein thrombosis and prescribed Coumadin
and Lovenox. Plaintiff was released the same day.
February 13, 2016, plaintiff returned to his home in
Roseburg, Oregon. Because plaintiffs right leg swelling had
not subsided, he went to the emergency room at the Portland
Veteran's Administration Medical Center. A physician took
x-rays of plaintiffs leg and determined that plaintiffs right
femur had a shear fracture above the knee. Surgery was
performed on February 15, 2016, including installation of
hardware and a stabilization rod in plaintiffs right leg.
Since the initial surgery, plaintiff has had two subsequent
surgeries to partially remove some of the hardware. On
February 6, 2018, plaintiff filed a complaint in this court
based on defendants' medical negligence.
defendant may move for a dismissal on the grounds that the
court lacks personal jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). The
plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the court's
personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Schwarzenegger v.
Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir.
whether personal jurisdiction exists over an out-of-state
defendant involves two inquiries. First, the exercise of
jurisdiction must satisfy the requirements of the forum
state's long-arm statute. Jenkins v. Whittaker
Corp., 785 F.2d 720, 723 (9th Cir. 1986). Second, the
exercise of jurisdiction under the forum state's statute
must comport with federal due process. Id.
Oregon's long-arm statute confers jurisdiction to the
extent permitted by due process under the United States
Constitution. Ranza v. Nike. Inc.. 793 F.3d 1059,
1068 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Or. R. Civ. P. 4(L)). Under
federal due process, a nonresident defendant must "have
certain minimum contacts" with the forum state
"such that the [exercise of jurisdiction] does not
offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice." Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326
U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotations omitted).
plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of
jurisdictional facts to withstand a motion to dismiss.
Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir.
2001). Where the motion is based on written materials rather
than an evidentiary hearing, the court must determine whether
the plaintiffs pleadings and affidavits make a prima facie
showing of personal jurisdiction. Caruth v. Int'l
Psychoanalytical Ass'n, 59 F.3d 126, 127-28 (9th
Cir. 1995). While the plaintiff cannot rest solely on the
bare allegations of the complaint, uncontroverted factual
allegations must be accepted as true. Amba Mktg. Sys. v.
Jobar Int'l, Inc., 551 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir.
are two types of personal jurisdiction a forum state may
exercise over nonresident defendants: specific and general.
Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir.
2008). A finding of either general or specific jurisdiction
will support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a
defendant. Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th
process clause permits a court to exercise general
jurisdiction when the defendant's activities within the
forum state are "substantial" or "continuous
and systematic." Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., 433 F.3d 1163, 1171 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing
Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia v. Hall 466 U.S.
408, 415 (1984)). The standard for general jurisdiction is
"exacting . . . because a finding of general
jurisdiction permits a defendant to be haled into court in
the forum state to answer for any of its activities anywhere
in the world." Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 801.
determining whether a nonresident defendant's contacts
are substantial or continuous and systematic, the court
considers defendant's "[l]ongevity, continuity,
volume, economic impact, physical presence, and integration
into the state's regulatory or economic markets."
Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d
1218, 1224 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Tuazon, 433 F.3d
at 1172). Additional factors to be considered 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 ...