Peluso v. New Jersey Devils, LLC

Background

Michael Peluso, a former professional hockey player and Minnesota resident, sued New Jersey Devils, LLC; St. Louis Blues Hockey Club, L.P.; Chubb Group Holdings, Inc.; and Federal Insurance Company. Peluso alleged that the defendants concealed or disregarded a neurologist’s 1994 report linking a seizure to a prior concussion, failed to warn him about the risk of further brain injury, and misrepresented his fitness to continue playing hockey. He alleged that he later suffered additional brain damage and was diagnosed with dementia and a seizure disorder in 2016.

Peluso also alleged that Chubb possessed the neurologist’s report during a California workers’ compensation proceeding and wrongfully withheld it. He said he learned of the report in 2016 when his counsel obtained it from parties in a separate multi-district litigation in Minnesota. He filed this action in 2017, relying on diversity jurisdiction.

Motions to Dismiss

The defendants jointly renewed motions to dismiss on several grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction. The court addressed personal jurisdiction first and concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over all defendants, so it did not reach the defendants’ other arguments.

Personal jurisdiction is a court’s power to require a defendant to defend a lawsuit in that court. The court explained that jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant requires sufficient contacts with the forum state, consistent with due process. For specific jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s claim must arise from or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the state; the plaintiff’s residence in the state alone is not enough.

As to Chubb Group Holdings and Federal Insurance Company, the court rejected Peluso’s argument that they had consented to jurisdiction through registrations submitted for other Chubb-related entities. It also rejected general jurisdiction because the evidence did not show that Chubb or Federal was essentially at home in Minnesota. The court further found no specific jurisdiction. Peluso’s allegations connected the defendants to him, but did not show that their conduct itself created a meaningful connection to Minnesota. The alleged withholding of documents occurred in the California workers’ compensation case, and the later production of documents in Minnesota did not establish the required connection to Minnesota.

As to the New Jersey Devils and St. Louis Blues, Peluso argued that they directed fraudulent conduct at him in Minnesota through his employment contracts, promotional activities, and a release signed in Minnesota. The court found that these facts did not show that the teams purposefully established meaningful contacts with Minnesota or that conduct forming the basis of Peluso’s claims took place there. The court also rejected reliance on document production in the Minnesota multi-district litigation for the same reasons it rejected that argument against the insurers.

The court acknowledged that Peluso’s health might make travel difficult, but explained that personal-jurisdiction rules primarily protect nonresident defendants from being required to litigate in an unrelated forum. The court held that Peluso had not shown the necessary contacts with Minnesota and granted the defendants’ Joint Renewed Motions to Dismiss.

Motion to Amend

Peluso sought permission to add allegations about a 1994 electroencephalogram showing temporal-lobe damage, other medical findings, the defendants’ alleged discovery violations in the California workers’ compensation case, and his inability to travel because of his health.

The court denied the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. It found that the proposed allegations would not change the personal-jurisdiction analysis: Peluso’s travel difficulties did not establish jurisdiction, the alleged California conduct did not create minimum contacts with Minnesota, and the new medical-record allegations did not connect the defendants’ conduct to Minnesota apart from Peluso’s residence there. The court therefore found the proposed amendment futile and denied the motion.