Burmeister v. Peterson

Background

Jeannette Burmeister asserted seven causes of action against Dr. Daniel Peterson, Sierra Internal Medicine, and Simmaron Research: fraud, breach of contract, conversion, civil penalties for receipt of stolen property, restitution or unjust enrichment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of California Health and Safety Code section 123120. She alleged that Sierra and Simmaron were Dr. Peterson’s alter egos.

Burmeister had a decade-long doctor-patient relationship with Dr. Peterson. He treated her for myalgic encephalomyelitis through an Ampligen study at his medical office in Nevada. In 2017, she agreed to purchase a one-year supply of Ampligen for $41,600, which was to be stored at the defendants’ office. She alleged that the defendants later failed to provide the full supply or refund her money and eventually removed her from the clinical study.

Dr. Peterson lives and works in Nevada, and Sierra Internal Medicine is a Nevada corporation. The Peterson Defendants did not have property or bank accounts in California and did not pay California taxes. Dr. Peterson had a California medical license, and he prescribed intravenous immune-globulin treatment that California infusion companies administered to Burmeister at her home. He also made one home visit, conducted some telephone appointments, ordered laboratory tests and scans, and monitored the home treatment.

Simmaron Research did not join the motion and had conceded personal jurisdiction. The Peterson Defendants previously sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the court denied that motion without prejudice and allowed jurisdictional discovery. After that discovery period, they filed the renewed motion addressed in this order.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), a defendant may seek dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, meaning the court’s power to hear claims against that defendant. The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that jurisdiction exists. The parties agreed that California did not have general jurisdiction over the Peterson Defendants, so the court considered specific jurisdiction, which depends on the relationship among the defendant, California, and the lawsuit.

The court applied a three-part test. First, the defendants must have purposefully directed activities toward California or purposefully taken advantage of conducting activities there. Second, the claims must arise from or relate to those California contacts. Third, exercising jurisdiction must be reasonable. The court concluded that Burmeister failed to satisfy the first two parts and therefore did not reach the reasonableness question.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Burmeister’s argument that Dr. Peterson purposefully took advantage of California by soliciting her at a 2011 presentation in Cupertino. The court found that the allegations showed that Burmeister and her husband sought out Dr. Peterson, and that Burmeister contacted him about a consultation. She then attended her initial appointment in Nevada and received the relevant Ampligen treatment there. The court also found that signing and emailing the patient-consent agreement from California, standing alone, did not establish purposeful availment.

The court nevertheless found that Peterson’s prescribing and oversight of intravenous immune-globulin treatment in California were enough to show that the defendants expressly directed some conduct toward California. But that conclusion did not establish specific jurisdiction. Burmeister’s claims concerned the Ampligen supply, alleged fraud and failure to refund money, and removal from the Nevada study. The court found that this conduct occurred in Nevada and that Burmeister did not show that her injuries resulted from, or were closely connected to, the California treatment, home infusions, laboratory testing, or telephone appointments.

The court also rejected reliance on Peterson’s treatment of Burmeister’s husband and daughter and his treatment of other California patients because those contacts were unrelated to this lawsuit. The court concluded that Burmeister had not shown that her claims arose from or related to the Peterson Defendants’ California contacts. It therefore held that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Dr. Peterson and Sierra Internal Medicine.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the Peterson Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Dr. Peterson and Sierra Internal Medicine. Because Burmeister had already been given an opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery and still failed to establish jurisdiction, the court found that amendment would be futile. It therefore dismissed Dr. Peterson and Sierra Internal Medicine without leave to amend. The order did not rule on the claims against Simmaron Research.

Judge

The order was signed by Araceli Martinez-Olguin, United States District Judge.