IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

GREENVILLE DIVISION

Larry Roper, )

 )

) C/A No. 6:11-2204-TMC

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) OPINION & ORDER

)

)

TAP Pharmaceutical )

Products, Inc.; and )

Abbot Laboratories, )

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________

This matter is before the court on Defendant Abbot Laboratories’ (“Abbot’s”) Motion

to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P, or alternatively a

transfer of venue to the Northern District of Illinois. (Dkt. # 33). Plaintiff Larry Roper

(“Plaintiff”) filed a response opposing the motion. (Dkt. # 37). For the reasons set forth

below, the court grants the motion to transfer. 

I. Facts/Background

On May 5, 2006, Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Plaintiff decided to

treat his cancer with radiation seeding. His urologist, Dr. Dennis Whatley prescribed

Lupron injections to shrink the prostate to increase the effectiveness of the radiation

seeding. Plaintiff states Dr. Whatley explained to him that the side effects of Lupron could

include hot flashes, a reduction in the size of his testicles, and headaches, and that these

side effects would reverse themselves within one year of his last injection. Plaintiff states

Dr. Whatley did not tell him that rheumatoid arthritis was a potential side effect. 

On May 26, 2006, Plaintiff alleges he received his first Lupron injection and

thereafter he received a monthly injection until November for a total of seven shots. Plaintiff
When the action was removed from state court, Plaintiff had already amended his 1

complaint once. 

2

underwent the radiation seeding in December 2006 and after three months his prostatespecific antigen (“PSA”) numbers were substantially improved. Within five months of the

last Lupron injection, Plaintiff alleges he began to experience significant joint pain and

swelling. He visited his family doctor, Dr. Newman Harter, who diagnosed him with

rheumatoid arthritis. Plaintiff states that he asked both Drs. Harter and Whatley if the

arthritis was associated with his prostate treatment and he was told no. 

Plaintiff alleges that sometime after November 24, 2008, he began conducting his

own research as to whether his rheumatoid arthritis could be related to his Lupron injections

and he found an Abbott fact sheet which stated that five percent of Lupron users develop

rheumatoid arthritis. Plaintiff filed this complaint in state court on May 20, 2011, alleging six

causes of action: 1) fraud, 2) negligent design and negligent failure to warn, 3) negligent

misrepresentation, 4) product liability/design defect, 5) breach of express and implied

warranties, and 6) fraudulent concealment. The action was removed to this court and

Plaintiff thereafter was granted leave to file a second amended complaint to name the

correct defendant. Defendant Abbott then filed this motion to dismiss or, alternatively, 1

transfer.

II. Discussion

Defendant Abbott filed this motion seeking a dismissal based upon lack of personal

jurisdiction and/or failure to state a claim. Alternatively, Abbott seeks a transfer to the

Northern District of Illinois where Abbott’s headquarters is located. Initially, the court notes

that the other Defendant, TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Incorporated (“TAP”), was

dissolved in 2008. 
3

When a district court decides a pretrial personal jurisdiction dismissal motion without

an evidentiary hearing, a plaintiff must prove a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. See

Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1993). To determine whether

plaintiffs have satisfied this burden, the court may consider the “pleadings, affidavits, and

other supporting documents presented to the court” and must construe them in the light

most favorable to plaintiff and draw all inferences in his favor. Mylan Labs., 2 F.3d at 62. 

A federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a “foreign corporation if such

jurisdiction is authorized by the long-arm statute of the state in which it sits and application

of the long-arm statute is consistent with the due process clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment.” Consulting. Eng'rs Corp. v. Geometric Ltd., 561 F.3d 273, 277 (4th Cir.

2009). Because South Carolina courts construe the South Carolina long-arm statute to

extend to the outer reaches of the Fourteenth Amendment, the court's statutory inquiry

merges with its constitutional inquiry. See, e.g., Cockrell v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 611

S.E.2d 505, 508 (S.C. 2005). Under the constitutional inquiry, a court has personal

jurisdiction over those persons with “sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such

that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and

substantial justice.” Consulting Eng'rs, 561 F.3d at 277 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

 To meet this burden, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant is subject to

either specific or general jurisdiction in South Carolina. Dtex, LLC, v. BBVA Bancomer,

S.A., 405 F.Supp.2d 639, 644 (D.S.C. 2005). Whether personal jurisdiction is general or

specific depends upon the degree of defendant's contacts with the forum state. General

personal jurisdiction exists when a defendant's contacts with the forum state are

“continuous and systematic,” thereby permitting the exercise of jurisdiction for actions

unrelated to defendant's contacts with the state. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A.
4

v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414–15 & n. 9 (1984). 

A defendant is subject to specific personal jurisdiction when the suit arises out of or

is related to the defendant's contacts with the forum. Helicopteros Nacionales, 466 U.S. at

414 & n. 8. In determining whether the due process requirements for specific personal

jurisdiction exist, the court must consider “(1) the extent to which the defendant purposefully

availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the State; (2) whether the plaintiffs'

claims arise out of those activities directed at the State; and (3) whether the exercise of

personal jurisdiction would be constitutionally reasonable.” ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv.

Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707, 712 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).

 Defendant Abbott contends that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. Abbott

states it owns no real estate, or manufacturing or distribution facilities in South Carolina,

has no employees in South Carolina, and does not distribute or market products here.

(Def.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. to Dismiss Attach. # 3- Decl. of Charles Santora ¶¶ 3, 5, 7). 

Plaintiff appears to concede that Defendant does not have the “continuous and systematic”

contacts to confer general jurisdiction, and even if he did not concede this, the court finds

the Defendant did not have such continuous or systematic contacts with South Carolina

sufficient to support general jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court applies the three part test

set out above to determine if specific jurisdiction is proper.

First, reviewing the Complaint, there are no allegations that Abbott itself conducted

activities in the State or purposefully directed activities towards South Carolina. The only

allegations in the Complaint regarding the personal jurisdiction of Defendant Abbott are that

Abbott is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois. Plaintiff then

alleges Abbott does business in Greenville, South Carolina, “by distributing the

pharmaceutical drug Lupron as a shareholder in TAP. (Compl. ¶ 3(emphasis added).
5

However, shareholders are not automatically subject to personal jurisdiction in those forums

where the corporation does business. See Jemez Agency, Inc. v. CIGNA Corp., 866

F.Supp. 1340, 1348 (D.N.M. 1994) (“No one would seriously argue that an individual

shareholder could, consistent with due process, be required to defend suit in a distant state

merely because the corporation does business or committed torts there.”). In Springs

Indus. v. Gasson, 923 F.Supp. 823, 827 (D.S.C. 1996), the court found it had jurisdiction

over a director of a company because “[a]t this stage of the proceedings, [Plaintiff] has

alleged sufficient facts to show that [Defendant] was involved in the decision making which

is causally related to its injury and that he was at least in part, the guiding spirit behind the

wrongful conduct.” Id. at 827. However, here, there are no allegations in the Complaint

that Abbott was involved in TAP’s decision making which is causally related to Plaintiff's

alleged injury. 

In its response to Abbott’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiff contends that Abbott has

minimum contacts with South Carolina due to its injection of a product into the stream of

commerce. (Pl.’s Mem. Opp. Mot. to Dismiss. at 8). Plaintiff states that “[i]t is indisputable

that an agent of the defendants manufactured the pharmaceutical drug Lupron and that the

defendants themselves marketed and distributed the drug with the expectation that Lupron

would be prescribed by medical doctors in the State of South Carolina for use by patients in

the State of South Carolina.” Id. at 5. Further, Plaintiff contends that TAP and Abbott made

substantial revenue from Lupron. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Abbott was more

that a mere shareholder in TAP and he asks the court to “exercise personal jurisdiction over

Abbott based upon TAP’s being an instrumentality and/or alter ego of Abbott.” (Pl.’s Mem.

Opp. Mot. to Dismiss at 8). Finally, Plaintiff contends that Abbott and Takeda America

Holdings, Inc., entered into a joint venture when they formed TAP to market and distribute
6

Lupron and that “[a]t the time [he] was injected with Lupron, Abbott was a fifty (50%)

percent owner of TAP and directed its operations.” Id. at 9. 

Initially, the court notes that the Supreme Court has rejected the exercise of

jurisdiction where a defendant has merely placed a product into the stream of commerce.

See J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S.Ct. 2780, 2785 (2011)(plurality opinion). The

plurality held that “the defendant's transmission of goods permits the exercise of jurisdiction

only where the defendant can be said to have targeted the forum; as a general rule it is not

enough that the defendant might have predicted that its goods will reach the forum state.” 

Id. at 2788. Therefore, “an intent to serve the U.S. market [does] not show . . . purposeful [ ]

avail[ment]” of the a particular forum state. Id. at 2790. 

More importantly, in this case, however, is that for the court to exercise personal

jurisdiction over Abbott under any of Plaintiff’s arguments, Plaintiff must make at least a

prima facie showing that Abbott is an agent of TAP. Plaintiff argues Abbott owned fifty

percent of TAP’s stock, but as stated above stock ownership is insufficient to confer

personal jurisdiction. Harris v. Deere & Co., 223 F.2d 161, 162 (4th Cir.1955) (holding that

personal jurisdiction was inappropriate in a tort case for a parent corporation, who

maintained corporate formalities of its wholly-owned domestic subsidiary) (citing Cannon

Manu. Co. v. Cudahay Packing Co., 267 U.S. 333, 335 (1925) (finding that a foreign

company that was the sole stockholder, exerted control both commercially and financially,

but respected all the corporate formalities could not be subject to veil piercing for personal

jurisdiction for a breach of contract claim)). See e.g., Harris v. Option One Mortg. Corp., 261

F.R.D. 98, 110 (D.S.C. 2009) (refusing to pierce the corporate veil to allow plaintiffs to sue a

fifth-tier parent company when some of the factors above were not satisfied). Furthermore,

other than conclusory allegations regarding Abbott directing TAP’s operations, there are no
7

factual allegations or evidence that support Plaintiff’s contention that Abbott was the agent,

instrumentality, or alter ego of TAP. Plaintiff has not shown Abbott purposefully availed

itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the South Carolina. As Plaintiff has failed to

meet the first prong of the three-part test for specific jurisdiction, the court need not discuss

the remaining prongs. 

Considering the pleadings, affidavits, and other supporting documents in the record,

construing them in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, and drawing all inferences in his

favor, Plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over

Defendant Abbott. Having determined that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over Abbott,

the court considers the alternative relief requested by Abbott, a transfer of this case to the

Northern District of Illinois, to be appropriate. Accordingly, the court grants Abbott’s request

to transfer the case. 

III. Conclusion

Defendant Abbot's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 33) is GRANTED in part. Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(2) or, Alternatively, Transfer is GRANTED and

this action is transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. However, the court declines to

rule on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and leaves this part of

Defendant’s Motion for decision by the transferee court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain

United States District Judge

Anderson, South Carolina

July 20, 2012