P.C. v. Driscoll

Background

P.C., using a pseudonym, asserted claims for medical malpractice, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, retention and supervision, respondeat superior, and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The claims arose primarily from a June 7, 2022 liposuction and double Brazilian Butt Lift performed at a medical facility in Ridgefield, New Jersey. P.C. alleged that Peter Driscoll engaged in unwanted sexual contact and comments during the procedure and that the defendants failed to provide appropriate evaluation, consent procedures, and medical records.

The moving defendants were Perkins Medical Care N.J., P.C.; NYC Medical Practice, P.C.; My Goals Solutions, Inc.; Sergey Voskin, M.D.; and Ella Voskin. Perkins Medical moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3), and 12(b)(6). NYC Medical Practice moved for summary judgment or, alternatively, dismissal under Rules 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6). My Goals Solutions, Sergey Voskin, and Ella Voskin moved to compel arbitration or, alternatively, to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6).

Venue analysis

The court addressed improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3), which allows a defendant to challenge whether the case was filed in the proper federal district. P.C. relied primarily on the rule allowing venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

The court concluded that P.C. had not shown that a substantial part of the relevant events occurred in the Southern District of New York. The medical malpractice claims concerned conduct during the New Jersey surgery. The court found that New York-based billing, patient-processing, and facility-selection activities were incidental to those claims and did not establish venue.

The court also found that P.C. had not adequately alleged that the failure to obtain informed consent, the failure to evaluate or examine P.C., or other allegedly deficient medical conduct occurred in the Southern District of New York. P.C. alleged a virtual consultation involving a representative in Harlem, but did not explain how that consultation was deficient or identify additional relevant medical conduct in the district.

For the negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims, the court explained that venue could depend on where the relevant employment decisions and supervision occurred, as well as where the employee’s misconduct occurred. P.C. did not allege where the moving defendants made the hiring decisions or supervised Driscoll. The court held that references to New York State, New York City, or a company’s headquarters were insufficient to establish venue specifically in the Southern District of New York.

The consumer-fraud claim was based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions about patient safety and the doctors’ qualifications. The court found that P.C. did not connect those alleged misrepresentations to conduct by any defendant in the Southern District of New York.

Because venue was improper, the court expressly did not address the parties’ arguments concerning personal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, or whether P.C.’s claims adequately stated legal claims for relief.

Transfer and disposition

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may dismiss a case filed in the wrong district or transfer it to a district where it could have been brought. The court determined that the District of New Jersey appeared to be the proper venue because a substantial part of the conduct occurred there. It chose transfer rather than dismissal because dismissal could cause New Jersey’s two-year limitations period to bar refiling of most of P.C.’s medical-malpractice and negligence claims. The court also stated that the case did not unquestionably lack merit and that the defendants did not argue that P.C. knowingly filed in the wrong venue or that transfer would prejudice them.

The court granted the moving defendants’ motions to dismiss and directed the Clerk to transfer the files concerning P.C.’s claims against Perkins Medical Care N.J., P.C.; NYC Medical Practice, P.C.; My Goals Solutions, Inc.; Sergey Voskin, M.D.; and Ella Voskin to the District of New Jersey. The opinion did not state that the claims were dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice, and it did not resolve the merits of the claims.