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 appellant 

(Walter A. Laufenberg, on the brief). 

Burns White, LLC, attorneys for respondents (Erika 

Lynn 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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 parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-2332-22

 This case returns to us after remand proceedings directed 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 not have specific 

jurisdiction over defendants in this dental malpractice case. Id. at 6.1 However, 

we determined that the trial court should have given the parties the opportunity 

to obtain discovery on the question of whether New Jersey had general 

jurisdiction over defendants before considering defendants' motion to dismiss 

the complaint. Id. at 8.

During the remand proceedings, the parties learned that "ClearChoice 

Dental Implant Centers," one of the defendants plaintiff 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 entity2 responsible for maintaining the dental office in Fort 

1

 The parties do not contest this ruling in this appeal. 

2

 Implant Dentistry is a Pennsylvania corporation.
3 A-2332-22

Washington, Pennsylvania where plaintiff received all of her treatment relative 

to her cause of action. 

Felicia Wilson, the dentist who performed the dental implant procedure 

on plaintiff, confirmed that she exclusively treated 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 Implant Dentistry. Plaintiff 

provided no competent evidence to the contrary during discovery. 

Plaintiff served two sets of written interrogatories upon defendants during 

the remand and defendants answered both of them. The trial court later gave 

plaintiff another opportunity to seek additional discovery by extending the 

discovery period to September 30, 2022. However, plaintiff did not seek any 

further discovery. She also never filed a motion asking for more responsive 

answers or any other information from defendants. 

Defendants thereafter filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff'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 Dentistry in its Articles of 

Incorporation.
4 A-2332-22

Following oral argument, the trial court granted defendants' motion to 

dismiss the complaint with prejudice on jurisdictional grounds.4 In its written 

decision, the court found that New Jersey lacked general jurisdiction over 

Implant Dentistry because plaintiff failed to show that this Pennsylvania 

corporation had any contacts with this State and plaintiff conceded that all of 

her treatment occurred in the corporation's Pennsylvania office. 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 the 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 fact that must be resolved at 

the outset of the proceedings. Rippon v. Smigel, 449 N.J. Super. 344, 359 (App. 

Div. 2017). On appeal, we examine whether the trial court's factual findings 

were supported by substantial credible evidence; however, we review de novo 

whether those facts supported the court's legal determination 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 sufficient 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." Rippon, 449 N.J. Super. at 359-

60.

 For a state to have personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant and 

satisfy due process, the defendant must have certain minimum 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 inquiry 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. Ibid.5

 Under general jurisdiction, a defendant may be sued for "virtually any 

claim, even if unrelated to the defendant's contacts with the forum," provided 

that the defendant's activities "can be characterized 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 essentially be "at home" in the 

foreign state, such as by having its principal place 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, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)). 

Thus, for there to be general jurisdiction, there must 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 New Jersey. Therefore New 

Jersey has no jurisdiction over her. Dutch Run-Mays 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 office in that state. All of 

plaintiff's treatments occurred in that Pennsylvania office. 6 We are therefore 

6

 As she did in the first appeal, plaintiff again attempts to tie Wilson to a 

ClearChoice office in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. However, plaintiff has 

provided no competent evidence to support her claim on this point and she 

admits in her current appellate brief that "[i]t remains 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 plaintiff's complaint against both 

defendants for lack of jurisdiction. 

 Affirmed.