Veitch v. National Hockey League

Background

The opinion was issued in multidistrict litigation involving former National Hockey League players’ alleged concussion-related injuries. Although the document identifies the related case as Veitch v. NHL, the motion and ruling concern Andre Deveaux, described as the only remaining plaintiff in the action.

Deveaux alleged that the NHL knew or should have known that permitting and promoting fighting exposed players to repetitive concussive and sub-concussive head injuries. He asserted two negligence-based claims and one fraud-based claim, alleging injuries including long-term brain damage and neurological deficits. He also alleged that the NHL concealed information about the risks of repeated head trauma and returning to games too soon after a traumatic brain injury.

Motion and Personal Jurisdiction

The NHL moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which permits dismissal when the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant. In the alternative, the NHL asked the court to transfer the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Deveaux did not respond.

The court explained that Deveaux had the burden to make a preliminary showing that Minnesota could exercise jurisdiction over the NHL. The court considered both general jurisdiction, which can allow a court to hear claims unrelated to the defendant’s activities in the state, and specific jurisdiction, which requires a connection between the claims and the defendant’s contacts with the state.

The court held that Minnesota lacked general jurisdiction over the NHL. The NHL was headquartered in New York, and the court found, in the absence of contrary evidence, that its principal place of business was also in New York. Although the NHL had a team in Minnesota and operated in many states, those contacts were not continuous and systematic enough to make the NHL essentially at home in Minnesota.

The court also held that Minnesota lacked specific jurisdiction. The Minnesota contacts identified in the complaint involved other players who lived in Minnesota or played for a Minnesota team. Those contacts did not relate specifically to Deveaux’s claims. The complaint did not allege where his injuries occurred, and information submitted with the motion showed that he did not play for a Minnesota team or participate in a hockey fight in Minnesota. The court therefore concluded that his claims did not arise from or relate to the NHL’s Minnesota contacts.

The court further found 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, and the record did not show that relevant witnesses or documents were located in Minnesota.

Disposition

The court granted the NHL’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It dismissed the case without prejudice and declined to address the NHL’s alternative request to transfer venue. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.

Judge

The opinion was signed by Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge.