Carlson v. Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine, LLC

Background

Defendants Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine, LLC (CCRM), Sarah Macleod, and Angela Fouts-Hyatt moved to dismiss the action or, alternatively, transfer it to the District of Colorado. They argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Macleod and Fouts-Hyatt, that the Northern District of California was an improper or inconvenient venue, and that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim. Defendants also asked the court to stay discovery while deciding those issues.

The opinion states that plaintiffs’ tort-based claims concern allegations that, on February 14, 2020, Macleod and Fouts-Hyatt called San Francisco police officers and dispatchers and disclosed plaintiffs’ confidential information to send officers to plaintiffs’ San Francisco residence to evaluate Maya Zubkovskaya under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150. Plaintiffs also asserted contract-based claims.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court held that plaintiffs made a prima facie showing—an initial showing sufficient at this stage—that California had personal jurisdiction over Macleod and Fouts-Hyatt for the tort-based claims. The court concluded that those claims arose from activities the individual defendants purposefully directed at California, rather than from the medical treatment plaintiffs received in Colorado. The court also found that defendants had not made a compelling showing that exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable.

The court exercised pendent personal jurisdiction over the contract-based claims. Pendent personal jurisdiction allows a court to hear related claims arising from a common set of facts when the court already has jurisdiction over another claim.

Venue and Transfer

The court found venue proper in the Northern District of California for the tort-based claims because plaintiffs alleged that they resided in the district and were injured there. It also found a basis for pendent venue over the related contract-based claims.

The court rejected transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses when the statutory requirements are met. The court found that plaintiffs’ chosen forum was where they resided and where all, or at least most, of the relevant events occurred. Other factors were essentially balanced, electronic records reduced the importance of evidence location, and defendants had not identified their proposed witnesses or explained the relevance of their testimony. The court also found that the Colorado action involved substantially different facts and, other than CCRM, different defendants.

Failure to State a Claim

The court rejected defendants’ argument that plaintiffs’ professional-negligence claims were time-barred, concluding that the claims were timely because the California Judicial Council had tolled the limitations period in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court also found that defendants had not identified any particular deficiency in plaintiffs’ claims and therefore had not met their burden to show that no valid claim had been stated.

Discovery and Disposition

Because of its rulings, the court denied defendants’ request to stay discovery as moot. The court vacated the hearing and stated: “For the reasons stated, the motion is hereby DENIED.” Judge Maxine Chesney therefore denied the motion to dismiss or transfer and denied the request to stay discovery as moot.