Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00462/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00462-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Medical Malpractice

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Marcellus B. Blackwell, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Sierra View District Hospital, 

Defendant.

No. CV12-0462 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against Defendant on March 6, 2012. Doc. 1. On 

November 6, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Doc. 14. 

Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion within the time limit set forth in the rules of 

procedure. See LRCiv 7.2(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). The Court issued an order giving 

Plaintiff until February 8, 2013 to file a response. Doc. 18. No response to the motion 

has been filed. The Court will dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

 Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction. Ziegler v. Indian 

River Cnty., 64 F.3d 470, 473 (9th Cir.1995). Because the Court is resolving the motion 

to dismiss without an evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff “need make only a prima facie 

showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion.” Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 

1495, 1498 (9th Cir.1995). That is, Plaintiff “need only demonstrate facts that if true 

would support jurisdiction over [Defendant].” Id. at 1498; see Bancroft & Masters, Inc. 

v. Augusta Nat'l, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir.2000). 

 In considering whether Plaintiff has satisfied this standard, the Court must apply 

Arizona's long-arm statute, which permits an exercise of personal jurisdiction to the 

Case 2:12-cv-00462-DGC Document 20 Filed 02/22/13 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

maximum extent permitted by due process. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.2(a); see Terracom v. 

Valley Nat'l Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 559 (9th Cir.1995). Therefore, absent traditional bases 

for personal jurisdiction (i.e., physical presence, domicile, or consent), the Court must 

consider whether Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with Arizona such that the 

exercise of personal jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and 

substantial justice. See Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). 

 If a defendant's contacts with Arizona are substantial, or continuous and 

systematic, the Court may assert general jurisdiction over the defendant even if Plaintiff's 

claims are unrelated to those contacts. Haisten v. Grass Valley Med. Reimbursement 

Fund, Ltd., 784 F.2d 1392, 1396 (9th Cir.1986). Plaintiff has made no showing that 

Defendant's contacts with Arizona are substantial, or continuous and systematic. 

 Alternatively, the Court may assert specific jurisdiction over Defendant if Plaintiff 

demonstrates that (1) Defendant purposefully availed itself of the privileges of 

conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its 

laws, or purposely directed conduct at the forum that has effects in the forum, (2) the 

claims arise out of or result from Defendant's forum-related activities, and (3) the 

exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. See Bancroft, 223 F.3d at 1086. Plaintiff has made 

no showing that Defendant, a hospital located in California, purposefully availed itself of 

the privileges of conducting activities in Arizona or directed conduct toward Arizona. 

 Plaintiff has failed to establish general or specific personal jurisdiction over 

Defendant. The Court therefore will grant the motion to dismiss. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction (Doc. 14) is granted. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action. 

 Dated this 22nd day of February, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-00462-DGC Document 20 Filed 02/22/13 Page 2 of 2