Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hooper v. Yampa Valley Medical Center

United States District Court, D. Oregon

June 29, 2018




         Defendants 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.


         On 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.

         On 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.


         A 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. 2004).

         Determining 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).

         The 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. 1977).


         There 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 Cir. 1990).

         I. General Jurisdiction

         The due 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.

         In 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.