SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2332- 22 GLORIA V. GOMEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. FELICIA WILSON, DDS, MS, and IMPLANT DENTISTRY ASSOCIATES OF PHILADELPHIA, P.C., Defendants-Respondents.

_____________________________

Submitted April 9, 2024

– Decided April 15, 2024 Before Judges Puglisi and Haas. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Docket No. L

- 1065

- 20. Gold, Albanese & Barletti, LLC, attorneys for appel lant (Walter A. Laufenberg, on the brief). Burns White, LLC, attorneys for respondents (Erika L ynn Lower, on the brief).
PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court. " Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parti es in the case and its use in other cases is limite d. R. 1:36- 3.2 A- 2332

- 22

This case returns to us after remand proceedings d irected by our previous opinion. Gomez v. Wilson , No. A- 1061 -20 (App. Div. Jan. 24, 2022) (slip op.

at 8) . Because the parties are thoroughly familiar with this decision and the underlying procedural history and facts, we do not repeat them here in detail. In our prior opinion, we held that New Jersey did n ot have specific jurisdiction over defendants in this dental malprac tice case. Id. at 6. 1 However, we determined that the trial court should have give n the parties the opportunity to obtain discovery on the question of whether New Jersey had general jurisdiction over defendants before considering def endants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Id. at 8. During the remand proceedings, the parties learned that "ClearChoice Dental Implant Centers," one of the defendants plai ntiff had named in her complaint, had been improperly included because it was not a legal corporate entity. Therefore, the caption of the complaint was amended to state that "Implant Dentistry Associates of Philadelphia, P.C. " (Implant Dentistry) was the corporate entity 2 responsible for maintaining the dental office in F ort

1 The parties do not contest this ruling in this appe al.

2 Implant Dentistry is a Pennsylvania corporation.3 A- 2332

- 22

Washington, Pennsylvania where plaintiff received a ll of her treatment relative to her cause of action. Felicia Wilson, the dentist who performed the denta l implant procedure on plaintiff, confirmed that she exclusively treate d plaintiff in the Pennsylvania office and that she was not domiciled in New Jersey

. 3 Wilson also asserted that the ClearChoice facility that plaintiff alleged she maintained in Mount Laurel, New Jersey was an entirely separate entity from Imp lant Dentistry. Plaintiff provided no competent evidence to the contrary duri ng discovery. Plaintiff served two sets of written interrogatorie s upon defendants during the remand and defendants answered both of them. T he trial court later gave plaintiff another opportunity to seek additional di scovery by extending the discovery period to September 30, 2022. However, p laintiff did not seek any further discovery. She also never filed a motion asking for more respo nsive answers or any other information from defendants. Defendants thereafter filed a motion to dismiss pla intiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Defendants also asserted that plaintiff's complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.

3 Wilson is listed as the incorporator of Implant D entistry in its Articles of Incorporation.4 A- 2332

- 22

Following oral argument, the trial court granted de fendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice on jurisdictional grounds. 4 In its written decision, the court found that New Jersey lacked ge neral jurisdiction over Implant Dentistry because plaintiff failed to show that this Pennsylvania corporation had any contacts with this State and pl aintiff conceded that all of her treatment occurred in the corporation's Pennsylvania o ffice. Likewise, New Jersey had no jurisdiction over Wilson because she was not domiciled in this State and performed all of her work on plaintiff in Pennsylvania. This appeal followed. On appeal, plaintiff contends th e trial court erred in concluding that New Jersey lacked general jurisdiction over defendants. We disagree. Whether a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted presents a mixed question of law and f act that must be resolved at the outset of the proceedings. Rippon v. Smigel, 4 49 N.J. Super. 344, 359 (App. Div. 2017). On appeal, we examine whether the tria l court's factual findings were supported by substantial credible evidence; ho wever, we review de novo whether those facts supported the court's legal det ermination on the jurisdiction

4 Because the court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, it did not address defendants' statute of limitations argument

.5 A- 2332

- 22

issue. Patel v. Karnavati Am., LLC, 437 N.J. Super . 415, 423 (App. Div. 2014). The plaintiff "bears the burden of pleading suffici ent facts to establish jurisdiction." Ibid. "When a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is made, it is only the jurisdictional allegations that are relevant, not the sufficiency of the allegations respecting the cause of action." R ippon, 449 N.J. Super. at 359- 60. For a state to have personal jurisdiction over a n onresident defendant and satisfy due process, the defendant must have certain minimu m contacts with the forum state. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S . 310, 316-17 (1945). Thus, the primary focus of the personal jurisdiction inqu iry is the defendant's relationship to the forum state. Jardim v. Overley , 461 N.J. Super. 367, 375 (App. Div. 2019). The United States Supreme Court has recognized two types of personal jurisdiction: general and specific. I bid. 5 Under general jurisdiction, a defendant may be sue d for "virtually any claim, even if unrelated to the defendant's contact s with the forum," provided that the defendant's activities "can be characteriz ed as 'continuous and systematic' contacts." Lebel v. Everglades Marina, Inc., 115 N.J. 317, 323

5 As previously noted, we determined that New Jersey lacked specific jurisdiction over defendants and, therefore, we do not further address that issue.6 A- 2332

- 22

(1989) (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia , S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416 (1984)). Such contacts require that it es sentially be "at home" in the foreign state, such as by having its principal plac e of business there or being incorporated there. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 128 (2014) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 56 4 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)). Thus, for there to be general jurisdiction, there m ust be "extensive" contacts between a defendant and a forum. Mische v. Bracey' s Supermarket, 420 N.J. Super. 487, 492 (App. Div. 2011) (quoting Johnston v. Multidata Sys. Int'l Corp., 523 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2008)). Here, defendants had no contacts with New Jersey. Wilson treated plaintiff in Pennsylvania and is not domiciled in N ew Jersey. Therefore New Jersey has no jurisdiction over her. Dutch Run-May s Draft, LLC v. Wolf Block,
LLP , 450 N.J. Super. 590, 602 (App. Div. 2017). Implant Dentistry is a Pennsylvania corporation that maintains its only of fice in that state. All of plaintiff's treatments occurred in that Pennsylvani a office. 6 We are therefore

6 As she did in the first appeal, plaintiff again att empts to tie Wilson to a ClearChoice office in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. Ho wever, plaintiff has provided no competent evidence to support her claim on this point and she admits in her current appellate brief that "[i]t re mains unknown when the Mount Laurel, New Jersey office came into existence and what the current status of the office is."7 A- 2332

- 22

satisfied that the trial court properly dismissed p laintiff's complaint against both defendants for lack of jurisdiction. Affirmed.