Pijanowski v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Civ. A. No. 85-73312-DT.
Decision Date | 04 June 1986 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 85-73312-DT. |
Parties | Richard J. PIJANOWSKI and Bertha Pijanowski, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION, Ralph A. Straffon, M.D., John Doe, M.D. and Richard Roe, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
C. Peter Theut, William A. Moore, Hill, Lewis, Adams, Goodrich & Tait, Mount Clemens, Mich., for plaintiffs.
Daniel G. Wyllie, Patrick F. Hickey, Dykema, Gossett, Spencer, Goodnow & Trigg, Detroit, Mich., for defendants.
Plaintiffs, Michigan residents, sue for injuries allegedly sustained because of defendants' malpractice in Ohio. Defendants move for dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction. I have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Plaintiffs rely on Michigan's long arm statute, Mich. Comp. Laws Annot. § 600.715 (West 1981), which extends jurisdiction to the limits of due process. See Sifers v. Horen, 385 Mich. 195, 188 N.W.2d 623 (1971). Jurisdiction is constitutional if defendants have "purposefully directed" their activities toward Michigan residents, Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 1478, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984), and if the injuries claimed "arise out of or relate to" the activities. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1872, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). See also, Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2181-2185, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (summarizing basic principles).
Defendants have a reputation for ability to perform with expertise a variety of sophisticated medical procedures. This reputation contributed to Dr. Lichtwardt's decision to refer plaintiff Richard Pijanowski for treatment. (Lichtwardt affidavit, ¶¶ 5-7; R. Pijanowski affidavit, ¶ 5; B. Pijanowski affidavit, ¶¶ 6-10). Defendant Cleveland Clinic ("Clinic") publicizes its reputation and solicits referrals by mailing over 14,000 copies of its staff directory and over 600 copies of its magazine, Challenge, to Michigan medical professionals.1 This material includes a toll free number to facilitate referrals. During the years 1981-1984, the Clinic treated an average of 2,400 Michigan residents per year. Because the Clinic publicizes its reputation in and solicits referrals from Michigan, it is subject to my jurisdiction. See Soares v. Roberts, 417 F.Supp. 304 (D.R.I.1976) ( ); Woodward v. Keenan, 79 Mich.App. 543, 548-549, 261 N.W.2d 80 (1977) ( ). Cf. Walters v. St. Elizabeth Hospital Medical Center, 543 F.Supp. 559 (W.D.Pa. 1982) ( ); Gelineau v. New York University, 375 F.Supp. 661 (D.N.J.1974) ( ).
The Clinic's contacts do not confer jurisdiction over members of its staff. See 4 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1069 (Supp. 1985) ( ). Since the individual defendants have no independent contacts with Michigan, they are not subject to my jurisdiction. See Soares, 417 F.Supp. at 307 ( ); Lemke v. St. Margaret Hospital, 594 F.Supp. 25 (N.D.Ill.1983), reconsidering, 552 F.Supp. 833 (N.D.Ill.1982) ( ).
Although I have jurisdiction over the Clinic, in the interest of justice, the case should be litigated in Ohio where the alleged malpractice occurred. See 15 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 3854 nn. 2 & 3 (1986) ( ). Cf. id. nn. 17 & 25 ( ). Section 1404(a) permits me to order transfer, sua sponte.2 See id. § 3845 n. 2. Even though Ohio's statute of limitations, Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2305.11 (Page Supp.1986), bars suit against the individual defendants, Michigan's statute of limitations, Mich. Comp. Laws Annot. §§ 600.5805, 600.5838, 600.5861 (West Supp.1985), applicable as the law of the transferor, permits suit against the Clinic. See Martin v. Stokes, 623 F.2d 469 (6th Cir.1980) ( ).
Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED. The action against the clinic is transferred to the Northern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and the action against the individual defendants is transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1 Defendants argue that I must disregard these mailings because of Dr. Lichtwardt's statement that his referral "was not prompted nor based in any way" on material received from the Cleveland Clinic. (Lichtwardt affidavit, ¶ 8.) I disagree. The Clinic admits sending the material into Michigan. Dr. Lichtwardt does not deny receiving it. Defendants' expertise, publicized by the mailings, was a factor...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Henderson
...911 F.Supp. 70 (N.D.N.Y.1996); Haskel v. FPR Registry, Inc., 862 F.Supp. 909, 916 (E.D.N.Y.1994); Pijanowski v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 635 F.Supp. 1435, 1436 (E.D.Mich.1986); Mobil Corp. v. S.E.C., 550 F.Supp. 67, 69 (S.D.N.Y.1982); National Acceptance Co. of America v. Wechsler, 489 ......
-
Kennedy v. Freeman
...v. St. Margaret Hospital, 552 F.Supp. 833 (N.D.Ill.1982); Cubbage v. Merchent, 744 F.2d 665 (9th Cir.1984); Pijanowski v. Cleveland Clinic, 635 F.Supp. 1435 (E.D.Mich.1986). 5 Another factor relevant to a due process inquiry is state interest. Wright v. Yackley, 459 F.2d 287 (9th 6 Wright v......
-
Clisham Management v. American Steel Bldg. Co.
...Co. v. Becker, 343 F.2d 361, 363 (8th Cir.1965); Coleman v. Chen, 712 F.Supp. 117, 123 (S.D.Oh.1988); Pijanowski v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 635 F.Supp. 1435, 1436 (E.D.Mich.1986); Riordan v. W.J. Bremer, Inc., 466 F.Supp. 411, 417 (S.D.Ga.1979); Watwood v. Barber, 70 F.R.D. 1, 9 (N.D.G......
-
Kennedy v. Freeman
...Merchent, 744 F.2d 665 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1005, 105 S.Ct. 1359, 84 L.Ed.2d 380 (1985); Pijanowski v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 635 F.Supp. 1435 (E.D.Mich.1986); Lemke v. St. Margaret Hosp., 552 F.Supp. 833 The district court here erred in asserting that jurisdiction over ......