N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SHER IF A. PHILIPS, M . D.; Dr.,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. PITT C OUNTY M EM O R IAL HOSPITAL, INC .; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 19-17313 D.C . No. 1:18-c v-00046 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t

of Gua m Franc e s Ty d i ngc o-Gate wood, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d August 4, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd HAW K INS and M c K EOW N, C irc u it Judge s. She rif Philips a

p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of his c a se for la c k of pe rsona l jurisdic tion. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED AUG 6 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam i lia r with the history

of this c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it he re . W e re vie w de novo a dism issa l for la c k of pe rsona l jurisdic tion. Sc hw arze ne

gge r v . Fre d Martin Motor C o. , 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th C ir. 2004). Pla i ntiff ha s the burde n of m aking a prim a fa c ie showing of pe rsona l jurisdic tion,

“ unc o ntrove rte d a lle gations in the c om pla int m u st be ta ke n a s true ” , and

“ [c ] onflic ts be twe e n pa

rtie s ove r state m e n ts c o nta ine d in a ffidavits m ust be re solve d in the pla intiff's fa vor.” Id. Howe ve r, a pla intiff c annot “ sim ply re st on the b are a lle gations of its c om pla int.” Amba Mk

t g. Sy s., Inc . v . J

obar Int'l, Inc
. , 551 F.2d 784, 787 (9th C ir. 1977). First, ge ne ra l pe rsona l jurisdic tion doe s not e xist. All de fe n da nts a re re side nts of North C arolina , and ha ve no “ substa

ntia l” or “ c ontinuous a

nd sy ste m atic ” c onta c ts with the forum te rritory
. Se e Tuazon v . R.J . Re y nolds Tobac c o C

o., 433 F.3d 1163, 1171 (9th C ir. 2006). Nor doe s spe c ific pe rsona l jurisdic tion e xist. De fe nda nts’ m a in c onta c ts with Gua m we re to e n forc e the attorne y s’ fe e award tha

t the D e fe nda

nts re c e i ve d from

a North C arolina

sta te c ourt. B ut the distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t this Gua m Supe rior C ourt a c tion did not give

rise to Philips’ c la im s, whic h inste a d prim arily c onc e rn Philips’ hospita l suspe n sion a

n d c ha lle nge s to the North C arolina c ourt proc e e dings, a nd
2that

re g ardle ss “ [t] he sim

ple dom e stic ation of a

fore i gn judgm e nt... sta

n ding a lone , is unlike l y suffic ie nt to c onfe r pe rsona l jurisdic t ion on thejudgm e nt c re ditor.” Se e Me nk e n v . Emm , 503 F.3d 1050, 1061 (9th C ir. 2007). W e a lso a gre e with the distric t c o urt tha

t D e fe n d ant C re e c h’ s 2007 le tte r to Gua m M e m oria l Hospita l, se nt at Philips’ attorne y ’ s re que st, doe s not c onstitute purpose ful a

v a i lm e nt of the forum . Fina lly , Philips’ c la i m tha t De fe nda nts c onta c te d a

Gua m ne wspa pe r to libe l Philips is a

c ontrove rte d ba

re a lle gation for whic h Philips doe s not provide a de quate support. Amba , 551 F.2d a t 787 (“ [Pla intiff] c ould not sim ply re st on the ba re a lle gat ions of its c om

pla int, but ra

the r wa s obliga

t e d to c om e forward with fa c t s, by a ffidav it or othe rwise , supporting persona l jurisdic tion.” ). To the e xte nt tha

t Philips’ a

ppe a l a nd m otions (Dkt. 22; 34; 38) se e k re vie w or re m ova l of the De fe nda nt’ s Gua m Supe rior C ourt a c tion, we de ny the m otions and a ffirm

dism issa l of the c a se . The m otions do not c om ply with there m ova l sta tute , 28 U.S.C . § 1446, a

nd this C ourt no longer ha s jurisdic tion to re vie w judgm e nts of theGua

m Supre m e C ourt, se e Santos v . Guam , 436 F.3d 1051 (9th C ir. 2006). The distric t c ourt like wise prope rly de nie d re m ova l a s untim e l y and ba rre d by the forum

de fe nda nt rule , 28 U.S.C . § 1441(b)(2), e ve n whe n ge ne rously c onstruing Philips’ m otions a nd c om pla i nt a s re que sting re m ova l.

3W e de ny De fe nda nts’ m otion for c osts a

nd da m a ge s unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of Appe l lat e Proc e dure 38 (Dkt. 16).

AFFIRM E D.

4