Summary
The Ninth Circuit reversed the Eastern District of Washington’s dismissal of a wrongful-death and survivor action for lack of personal jurisdiction over an Idaho medical center and physician. The court held that Washington’s long-arm statute and due process permitted specific personal jurisdiction because the defendants cultivated treatment relationships with Washington residents and repeatedly transmitted prescriptions to Washington pharmacies. The court also held that venue was proper in the Eastern District of Washington and remanded the case.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Washington's long-arm statute authorized specific personal jurisdiction over the Idaho physician and medical center.
- Whether exercising specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants complied with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Whether plaintiffs were prejudiced by the denial of jurisdictional discovery concerning Gritman's possible general personal jurisdiction in Washington.
- Whether venue was proper in the Eastern District of Washington under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
- Whether dismissal should be affirmed as to Todd Bledsoe after plaintiffs conceded that he was properly dismissed.
Holdings
- Washington's long-arm statute authorized specific personal jurisdiction because the defendants transacted business in Washington through repeated cross-border prescription activity, and the transaction-of-business provision is coextensive with federal due-process limits.
- Specific personal jurisdiction over Marciano and Gritman in Washington complied with due process because both defendants had minimum contacts with Washington, plaintiffs' claims arose out of or related to those contacts, and defendants failed to make a compelling showing that jurisdiction would be unreasonable.
- The court did not need to decide whether the district court properly denied jurisdictional discovery concerning general jurisdiction because defendants were subject to specific personal jurisdiction, leaving plaintiffs without actual and substantial prejudice from the denial.
- Venue was proper in the Eastern District of Washington because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred there, including Susan's ingestion of the medications, overdose, and death near her Washington home.
- The dismissal was affirmed as to Todd Bledsoe because plaintiffs conceded at oral argument that he was properly dismissed.
Key quotations
“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes three requirements for exercising specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant: (1) the defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum; (2) the claim must “arise[] out of or relate[] to the defendant’s forum-related activities”; and (3) “the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.”” (12)
“Because we conclude that Defendants are subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Washington, Plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the denial of jurisdictional discovery as to general jurisdiction.” (28)
“Because Plaintiffs allege that Susan ingested her prescriptions, overdosed, and died near her home in Albion, Washington, the record establishes that a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the Eastern District of Washington and that venue therein is proper.” (29)
Factual background
Susan and Mark Cox lived in Albion, Washington, near the Idaho border. Patricia Marciano, an Idaho physician, treated Susan for approximately six years and prescribed multiple medications, including opioids; at Susan's request, Marciano and Gritman repeatedly transmitted prescriptions and refills to Washington pharmacies. Susan died in 2022 from an overdose allegedly related to over-prescription, and the estate and Mark Cox brought Washington-law wrongful-death and survivor claims in the Eastern District of Washington.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed Washington-law wrongful-death and survivor claims in the Eastern District of Washington against Idaho-based medical defendants. The district court denied jurisdictional discovery concerning Gritman's possible general jurisdiction, held that Washington's long-arm statute and due process did not support specific personal jurisdiction, and dismissed the action. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that specific personal jurisdiction and venue existed, affirmed dismissal as to Todd Bledsoe based on plaintiffs' concession, and otherwise reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded for further proceedings after reversal of the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and rejection of the venue challenge. Dismissal as to Todd Bledsoe remained affirmed. Defendants were ordered to bear the costs on appeal.