Hamm v. Acadia Healthcare Co.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
• Writing for the Court: SUSIE MORGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Decision Date: 31 March 2021
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-1515 SECTION: "E"
• Citation: Hamm v. Acadia Healthcare Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-1515 SECTION: "E" (E.D. La. Mar 31, 2021)
• Parties: AMY HAMM, Plaintiff v. ACADIA HEALTHCARE CO., INC., ET AL., Defendants

AMY HAMM, Plaintiff v. ACADIA HEALTHCARE CO., INC., ET AL., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-1515 SECTION: "E"

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

March 31, 2021

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss Red River Hospital, LLC, and Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., for lack of personal jurisdiction.¹ Plaintiff opposes this motion.² The Court granted Plaintiff's request for limited jurisdictional discovery and allowed the parties to provide supplemental memorandums,³ which both parties submitted.⁴ For the following reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice as to both Red River Hospital, LLC, and Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., for lack of personal jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

This is a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case filed by Plaintiff Amy Hamm on behalf of herself and those similarly situated. On May 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. ("Acadia"), Ochsner-Acadia LLC ("Ochsner-Acadia"), and Red River Hospital LLC ("Red River").⁵ Plaintiff brings causes of action for violations of 29 U.S.C. § 207 for failure to pay overtime compensation for on-duty mealperiods and failure to pay overtime compensation for "off-the-clock" work, among other wage-based causes of action.⁶

Plaintiff brings her complaint as a class action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). Plaintiff brings causes of action for two separate classes—one made up of similarly situated persons in Louisiana ("Louisiana Class"), and the other made up of similarly situated persons in Texas ("Texas Class"). The Louisiana Class members are "people who have been employed by Defendants as non-exempt workers involved with patient care at any location in the State of Louisiana, and who voluntary resigned or were discharged from employment with Defendants, during the time period beginning three years preceding the filing of this Complaint."⁷ The Texas Class members are those "who are or who have been employed by Defendants as non-exempt workers involved with patient care at any location in the State of Texas during the period beginning four years preceding the filing of this Complaint."⁸

Plaintiff also brings her complaint as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on behalf of "[a]ll current and former hourly, non-exempt employees involved with patient care, including but not limited to nursing staff, nurses, nursing assistants, nurse aides, technicians, clerks, non-exempt therapists, or other non-exempt employees with similar job duties employed at any facility operated by Defendant Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. during the time period three years prior to the filing of the original Complaint until resolution of this action (the "Collective Action")."⁹

Plaintiff brings causes of action for violations of 29 U.S.C. § 207, failure to pay overtime compensation for on-duty meal periods (FLSA Collective Action); violations of 29 U.S.C. § 207, failure to pay overtime compensation for "off-the-clock" work (FLSA Collective Action); quantum meruit (Texas Class Action); money had and received (Texas Class Action); unjust enrichment (Texas Class Action); violation of Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315, conversion (Louisiana Class Action); violations of Louisiana Revised Statute § 23:635, unlawful deductions (Louisiana Class Action); and violations of Louisiana Civil Code Article 2298, unjust enrichment (Louisiana Class Action).¹⁰

FACTS

The Court finds the following facts to be true for the purposes of deciding this motion. Acadia is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Franklin, Tennessee.¹¹ Acadia is one the members of Ochsner-Acadia.¹² Acadia is the sole member of Red River Holding Company, LLC, which is the sole member of Red River.¹³

Acadia is the sole member of Acadia JV Holdings, LLC.¹⁴ Acadia JV Holdings, LLC is the sole member of Acadia LaPlace Holdings, LLC.¹⁵ Acadia LaPlace Holdings, LLC owns River Place Behavioral Health in LaPlace, Louisiana.

Red River is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Texas.¹⁶ Red River operates Red River Hospital in Wichita, Texas.¹⁷ Plaintiffalleges, and Defendants agree,¹⁸ she was employed by Red River as a nurse at Red River Hospital in Wichita Falls, Texas, from approximately February 2015 to December 2019.¹⁹

Ochsner-Acadia is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Tennessee.²⁰ Acadia is one the members of Ochsner-Acadia.²¹ Ochsner-Acadia operates River Place Behavioral Health in LaPlace, Louisiana.²²

Plaintiff alleges she has been employed by River Place Behavioral Health from approximately December 2019 to present.²³ Ochsner-Acadia presents sworn testimony that it is not Plaintiff's "employer" at River Place Behavioral Health facility in LaPlace, Louisiana, and that Plaintiff's employer at River Place Behavioral Health is Acadia LaPlace Holdings, LLC.²⁴ In his sworn declaration, Christopher Howard, the Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Acadia, as well as Vice President and Secretary of Ochsner-Acadia and Acadia LaPlace Holdings, LLC attests Acadia LaPlace Holdings, LLC currently employs Plaintiff as a Nurse Supervisor at River Place Behavioral Health and that Ochsner-Acadia has never employed Plaintiff in any capacity.²⁵ Plaintiff provides no evidence to refute Howard's sworn declaration. The Court finds Acadia LaPlace Holdings, LLC is Plaintiff's current employer, and she has never been employed by Ochsner-Acadia.

LEGAL STANDARD

When a non-resident defendant challenges personal jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving personal jurisdiction exists.²⁶ If the district court rules on the motion without an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction.²⁷ In determining whether the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction, the district court must take the allegations of the complaint as true, except as controverted by opposing affidavits, and all conflicts in the facts must be resolved in favor of plaintiff.²⁸ The district court may consider matters outside the complaint, including affidavits, when determining whether personal jurisdiction exists.²⁹ "[U]ncontroverted allegations in the complaint are deemed true and factual conflicts in the parties' declarations are resolved in the plaintiff's favor."³⁰ "However, the court cannot assume the truth of the allegations in a plaintiff's complaint that are contradicted by sworn affidavit."³¹ A finding that the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts does not, however, end the inquiry: ultimately, "the plaintiff must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, either at a pretrial evidentiary hearing or at a trial."³²

To exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, two requirements must be satisfied. "First, the forum state's long-arm statute must confer personaljurisdiction. Second, the exercise of jurisdiction must not exceed the boundaries of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."³³ Because Louisiana's long-arm statute confers personal jurisdiction to the limits of constitutional due process, these two inquiries become one and the same.³⁴

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "operates to limit the power of a State to assert in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant."³⁵ For a court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant to be constitutional under the Due Process Clause, (1) "that defendant [must have] purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of the forum state by establishing 'minimum contacts' with the forum state; and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction over that defendant [must] not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'"³⁶

A court may exercise general jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant when that defendant's contacts with the forum state are "continuous and systematic," regardless of whether such contacts are related to the plaintiff's cause of action.³⁷ Stated differently, "[g]eneral jurisdiction will attach, even if the act or transaction sued upon is unrelated to the defendant's contacts with the forum state, if the defendant has engaged in 'continuous and systematic' activities in the forum state."³⁸ In Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, SA. v. Brown, the Supreme Court stated that, "for an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual's domicile; for a corporation it is an equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at home."³⁹ That is,the corporation must have substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts with the forum state so as to "render [it] essentially at home in the forum state."⁴⁰ "It is, therefore, incredibly difficult to establish general jurisdiction in a forum other than the place of incorporation or principal place of business."⁴¹ Plaintiff does not assert general jurisdiction over Defendants Acadia and Red River.⁴²

When the defendant's contacts are less pervasive, as in this case, a court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant "in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum."⁴³ Specific jurisdiction exists, for example, when a non-resident defendant "has 'purposefully directed its activities at the forum state and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities.'"⁴⁴ Specific jurisdiction exists when a non-resident defendant "purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws."⁴⁵ "The non-resident's 'purposeful availment' must be such that the defendant 'should reasonably anticipate...