Adams v. National Hockey League

Background

The case was part of multidistrict litigation concerning former National Hockey League players’ alleged injuries from repetitive head trauma, including concussions and other head impacts. Todd Harvey, identified as the only remaining plaintiff, alleged that he suffered approximately eight concussions and numerous other head injuries while playing in the NHL from 1993 to 2006. He alleged current post-concussion symptoms and an increased risk of developing serious, delayed neurological disorders.

Harvey asserted six counts against the NHL. They included a request for a declaration about the NHL’s knowledge and conduct, a claim for medical-monitoring costs, negligence, negligent misrepresentation by omission, fraudulent concealment, and fraud by omission and failure to warn. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the NHL promoted fighting, failed to warn players about the long-term risks of head injuries, concealed relevant studies, and failed to use appropriate concussion protocols.

The NHL moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). It argued that the NHL was not subject to general jurisdiction in Minnesota because its headquarters and principal place of business were in New York. It also argued that Harvey’s claims were not connected to the NHL’s contacts with Minnesota. Harvey was proceeding without a lawyer and did not respond to the motion.

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority to exercise power over a defendant. The court explained that a plaintiff seeking to establish personal jurisdiction must make a preliminary showing that jurisdiction is proper. In Minnesota, the state-law and constitutional inquiries are combined into one due-process analysis.

The court rejected general, or all-purpose, jurisdiction. General jurisdiction allows a court to hear any claim against a defendant, even when the events occurred elsewhere, but the defendant must be essentially at home in the forum. The court found that the NHL was not essentially at home in Minnesota. The NHL was headquartered in New York, and the NHL asserted without opposition that its principal place of business was also in New York. The court also found that the NHL’s nationwide activities, including having a Minnesota club or team among clubs and teams in several states, were not sufficiently continuous and systematic to make Minnesota a general-jurisdiction forum.

The court also rejected specific jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction requires that the lawsuit arise from or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum. The court identified the complaint’s Minnesota-related allegations as involving other NHL players who lived in Minnesota or played for a Minnesota team and suffered head trauma. Those contacts did not specifically relate to Harvey’s claims.

The court noted that Harvey did not allege that he played for a Minnesota NHL team, played an NHL game in Minnesota, participated in a hockey fight in Minnesota, or suffered an injury in Minnesota. The complaint was also silent about where his alleged injuries occurred. The court concluded that the alleged failure to warn, promotion of violence, and failure to implement concussion protocols were not alleged to have occurred in Minnesota. The court therefore found no basis for specific personal jurisdiction.

The court further concluded that Minnesota’s interest in providing a forum and the convenience of the parties did not change the result. It noted that no party was a Minnesota citizen, the injuries occurred elsewhere according to the court’s discussion, and there was no evidence that relevant witnesses or documents were located in Minnesota. The multidistrict litigation did not eliminate the need to establish personal jurisdiction because the parties had not agreed to waive jurisdictional or venue defenses.

Disposition

The court held that Harvey did not meet his burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over the NHL. Judge Susan Richard Nelson granted the NHL’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). The order states that the case was dismissed without prejudice, and judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.

Scope of the Ruling

The ruling addressed the court’s authority over the NHL, not whether Harvey’s allegations about head injuries, warnings, negligence, medical monitoring, or fraud were legally or factually correct.