Brown v. Quince Nursing & Rehab. Ctr.
| Decision Date | 19 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:18-cv-2740,2:18-cv-2740 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
| Parties | JAMARCUS BROWN, as next of kin of Rocky Darrin Brown, deceased, and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Rocky Darrin Brown, Plaintiff, v. QUINCE NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC, d/b/a QUINCE NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER; AURORA CARES, LLC; DTD HC, LLC; D&N, LLC; DONALD T. DENZ; and NORBERT A. BENNETT, Defendants. |
Before the Court is Aurora Cares, LLC ("Aurora Cares"); DTD HC, LLC ("DTD"); D&N, LLC ("D&N"); Donald T. Denz; and Norbert A. Bennett's (collectively, the "Non-facility Defendants") Motion to Dismiss, filed on November 2, 2018. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff Jamarcus Brown, as next of kin of Rocky Darrin Brown, deceased, and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Rocky Darrin Brown, responded on November 30, 2018. (ECF No. 17.) Non-facility Defendants replied on December 14, 2018. (ECF No. 18.)
For the following reasons, Non-facility Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
Quince Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC ("Quince") is a nursing home facility and a Tennessee limited liability company. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 6.) Aurora Cares is a New York limited liability company. (ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 5.) The members of Quince and Aurora Cares are D&N and DTD. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 7; No. 1-1 ¶¶ 4-5.) D&N and DTD are New York limited liability companies. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 7.) Norbert A. Bennett is a member of D&N. (Id.) Donald T. Denz is a member of DTD. (Id.)
Rocky Brown was a resident of Quince Nursing and Rehabilitation Center from about April 24, 2017, to November 28, 2017. (ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 2.) Around November 28, 2017, Rocky Brown was transferred from Quince Nursing and Rehabilitation Center to Saint Francis Hospital. (Id.) On March 31, 2018, Rocky Brown died at the hospital. (Id.)
On August 22, 2018, Jamarcus Brown, Rocky Brown's son, brought this negligence and survival and wrongful death action against the Defendants in Tennessee state court. (ECF No. 1-1.) Jamarcus Brown alleges that injuries Rocky Brown sustained at Quince Nursing and Rehabilitation Center led to Rocky Brown's death. (Id. ¶¶ 20-23.)
On October 24, 2018, Defendants removed this action to federal court. (ECF No. 1.) On November 2, 2018, Non-facility Defendants filed this Motion to Dismiss asserting that: (1) the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over them; (2) Denz and Bennett are protected from suit under the "fiduciary shield doctrine"; and (3) Jamarcus Brown fails to state a claim against the Non-facility Defendants under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act ("THCLA"), Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-26-101, et seq. (ECF No. 9-1 at 8-16.)
Concurrently with Non-facility Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Quince filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings ("Motion to Compel"). (ECF No. 8.) On August 27, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay pending resolution of Quince's Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 42.) Non-facility Defendants argue that, if the Court has personal jurisdiction over them, an arbitration agreement binds Jamarcus Brown to arbitration on his claims against them. (ECF No. 8-1 at 1 n.1.) On September 26, 2019, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Stay and held the case in abeyance pending resolution of Quince's Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 46.) On August 12, 2020, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation denying Quince's Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 66.) Because that Order concluded that an arbitration agreementdid not bind Rocky Brown to arbitration, Non-facility Defendants' argument about arbitration also fails.
The Court has diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Jamarcus Brown seeks compensatory and punitive damages for, inter alia, survival and wrongful death claims against multiple defendants. (See ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 50; see also ECF No. 1 ¶ 5.)
The parties are completely diverse. At the time of his death, Rocky Brown was a citizen of Tennessee. (ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 2; see also No. 1 ¶ 6). For purposes of this action, Jamarcus Brown is also a citizen of Tennessee. No defendant is a citizen of Tennessee. Quince is a Tennessee limited liability company. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 6.) Aurora Cares is a New York limited liability company. (ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 5.) For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, limited liability companies have the citizenship of each of their members. Americold Realty Tr. v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1012, 1015 (2016) (citing Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990)); accord Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Grp., LLC, 585 F.3d 1003, 1005 (6th Cir. 2009). The members of Quince and Aurora Cares are D&N and DTD, who are also named defendants in this lawsuit. (See ECF No. 1 ¶ 7; No. 1-1 ¶¶ 4-7.) D&N and DTD are New York limited liability companies. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 7.) D&N's members areNorbert A. Bennett, the Norbert A. Bennett Children's Trust, and the Norbert A. Bennett Grand-Children's Trust. (Id.) Bennett is a citizen of New York. (Id.) The citizenship of a traditional trust is that of its trustee. See GBForefront, L.P. v. Forefront Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 888 F.3d 29, 38-40 (3d Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). The trustee of the Norbert A. Bennett Children's Trust and the Norbert A. Bennett Grand-Children's Trust is Ronald Bennett, who is also a citizen of New York. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 7.) DTD's members are Donald T. Denz and the Donald T. Denz Irrevocable Trust. (Id. ¶ 8.) Denz is a citizen of New York. (Id.) The trustee of the Donald T. Denz Irrevocable Trust is Martin Clifford, who is also a citizen of New York. (Id.)
The Court has diversity jurisdiction because the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Federal courts sitting in diversity apply state law to issues of substantive law and federal law to procedural issues. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78-80 (1938); see also Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 427 (1996). When there is no dispute that a certain state's substantive law applies, the court need not conduct a choice-of-law analysis sua sponte. See GBJ Corp. v. E. Ohio Paving Co., 139 F.3d 1080, 1085 (6th Cir. 1998). The parties assume in their respective briefs thatTennessee substantive law governs Jamarcus Brown's claims. The Court will apply Tennessee substantive law.
When a defendant challenges personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), "[t]he plaintiff bears the burden of making a prima facie showing of the court's personal jurisdiction over the defendant." Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 615 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Malone v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., 965 F.3d 499, 504 (6th Cir. 2020). A plaintiff "can meet this burden by 'establishing with reasonable particularity sufficient contacts between [defendants] and the forum state to support jurisdiction.'" Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883, 887 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Provident Nat'l Bank v. Cal. Fed. Sav. Loan Ass'n, 819 F.2d 434, 437 (3d Cir. 1987)). If the plaintiff meets his burden, the motion to dismiss should be denied "notwithstanding any controverting presentation by the moving party." Serras v. First Tenn. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 875 F.2d 1212, 1214 (6th Cir. 1989) (quoting Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Miller, 664 F.2d 899, 904 (2d Cir. 1981)). Because the Court is relying solely on written submissions to resolve this Motion, rather than an evidentiary hearing or jurisdictional discovery, Jamarcus Brown's burden to establish a prima facie showing of personaljurisdiction is "relatively slight." Air Prods. & Controls, Inc. v. Safetech Int'l, Inc., 503 F.3d 544, 549 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Am. Greetings Corp. v. Cohn, 839 F.2d 1164, 1169 (6th Cir. 1988)); see also Dean v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., 134 F.3d 1269, 1272 (6th Cir. 1998) ("relatively light"). The Court construes the facts in the light most favorable to Jamarcus Brown. See Air Prods., 503 F.3d at 549 (citing Theunissen v. Matthews, 935 F.2d 1454, 1459 (6th Cir. 1991)).
When considering a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), a federal court looks first to the long-arm statute of the state in which it sits to determine the state's limitations on personal jurisdiction. See Aristech Chem. Int'l Ltd. v. Acrylic Fabricators Ltd., 138 F.3d 624, 627 (6th Cir. 1998); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). The court then assesses whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction, if any, would be appropriate under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865, 871 (6th Cir. 2002); CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257, 1262 (6th Cir. 1996). If the exercise of jurisdiction would be inappropriate under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, this "foreclose[s] the exercise of personal jurisdiction even where a properly construed provision of the long-arm statute would otherwise permit it." Theunissen, 935 F.2d at 1459.
Rule 12(b)(6) allows dismissal of a complaint that "fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion permits the "defendant to test whether, as a matter of law, the plaintiff is entitled to legal relief even if everything alleged in the complaint is true." Mayer v. Mylod, 988 F.2d 635, 638 (6th Cir. 1993). A motion to dismiss tests only whether the plaintiff has pled a cognizable claim and allows the court to dismiss meritless cases that would waste judicial resources and result in unnecessary discovery. See Brown v. City of Memphis, 440 F. Supp. 2d 868, 872 (W.D. Tenn. 2006).
When evaluating a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court must determine whether the complaint alleges "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556...
To continue reading
Request your trial