Shaughnessy v. Southern, MD

Background

James W. Shaughnessy and Tracy A. Dunbrook, proceeding without lawyers, brought identical medical-malpractice actions against Edward P. Southern, MD. The claims arose from treatment that Shaughnessy received from Southern in Shanghai, China. The plaintiffs were citizens of Connecticut. They alleged that Southern, although living in Texas, was a citizen of Minnesota.

Southern moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), arguing that Minnesota lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Personal jurisdiction is a court’s power to decide a case involving a particular defendant. He also argued that the case should be dismissed under the doctrine allowing a court to decline a case when another forum is more appropriate.

Personal Jurisdiction

Because the court did not hold an evidentiary hearing, it viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and resolved factual conflicts in their favor. The plaintiffs nevertheless had to make a prima facie showing—enough initial evidence to support the court’s exercise of jurisdiction.

The court considered both general and specific personal jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction applies when the claim arises from or relates to the defendant’s conduct in the forum state. The court found that specific jurisdiction was not available because the events underlying the claims occurred in China, not Minnesota.

General jurisdiction allows a court to hear any claim against a defendant whose connections with the state are so substantial that the defendant is essentially at home there. For an individual, the usual forum for general jurisdiction is the person’s domicile, meaning the person’s true, fixed, and permanent home.

The plaintiffs pointed to Southern’s residence and medical practice in Minnesota from 2002 to 2007, his ownership of Minnesota property, his former Minnesota consulting-business registration, his Minnesota medical license, service of process at his Minnesota property in an earlier lawsuit, internet listings identifying him as a Minnesota resident, and Minnesota telephone numbers. The court also considered evidence that Southern’s wife and daughter appeared to live at the Minnesota property.

The court found that these connections did not establish Minnesota as Southern’s domicile. Southern had lived and worked elsewhere after 2007, had not practiced medicine in Minnesota since 2012, had no office or employees there, and had not renewed his Minnesota business license in 2018. He described the Minnesota property as a vacation home and had given up its homestead designation for tax purposes. In contrast, the evidence showed that he intended to live in Texas permanently, worked at the University of Texas, was buying a Texas home, was registered to vote and had a vehicle registered in Texas, and belonged to Texas professional and religious organizations.

Ruling

The court held that the plaintiffs had not made the required initial showing that Minnesota could exercise personal jurisdiction over Southern. It concluded that Minnesota had neither general nor specific personal jurisdiction over him.

Judge Susan Richard Nelson granted Southern’s Motion to Dismiss. Because the court found that it lacked personal jurisdiction, it did not consider Southern’s argument based on the more-convenient-forum doctrine. The order directed that judgment be entered.