Robinson v. Castle
| Decision Date | 29 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. H-11-649 |
| Parties | ALBERT M. ROBINSON, et al, Plaintiffs, v. JACK HUSTON CASTLE, et al, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Plaintiffs sue, on various theories, for harm they allegedly suffered as a consequence of dental services they received. Pending before the Court are: (1) two Motions for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Albert and Anita Robinson (Doc. Nos. 54 and 57); (2) the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants the New Jersey Judiciary, the Mercer-Vincinage Family Division, Ms. Sue Regan, Ms. Sandra L. Terry, and Mr. Doug Meckel (collectively the "New Jersey Defendants") (Doc. No. 35); (3) the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Dr. Kent Ziegenbein and Dr. Larry Earl Freeman (Doc. No. 61); (4) two Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Mr. Jack Huston Castle and Dentist Choice 1 L.P. (Doc. Nos. 31 and 62); and (5) the Motion to Declare Plaintiffs Vexatious Litigants filed by Defendants Ziegenbein and Freeman (Doc. No. 30).
After considering all of the parties' Motions, the responses thereto, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the New Jersey Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 35) must be granted; that Defendants Ziegenbein and Freeman's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 61) must be granted; that Defendants Castle and Dentist Choice 1 L.P.'s Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 31 and 62) must be granted; that Defendants Ziegenbeinand Freeman's Motion to Declare Plaintiffs Vexatious Litigants (Doc. No. 30) must be denied; and that all other pending Motions must be denied as moot.
Plaintiffs Albert and Anita Robinson filed their "First Amended Original Petition" (hereinafter "Amended Complaint") naming as Defendants Jack Huston Castle, Dr. Larry Freeman, Dr. Kent Ziegenbein, Dentist Choice 1 L.P. ("Dentist Choice"), Dr. Bahman Safari, Texas Dental Associates P.A.1 ("Texas Dental"), the New Jersey Judiciary, the Mercer-Vincinage Family Division (pled as "Mercer County Domestic Violence Team"), Sandra L. Terry, Doug Meckel, and Sue Regan.1 (Doc. No. 55.) For purposes of the motions to dismiss, the Court accepts the following factual allegations in Plaintiffs' complaint as true. Frame v. City of Arlington, 575 F.3d 432, 434 (5th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiffs Albert and Anita Robinson are a married couple currently residing in Florida. (Pl. Am. Compl. ¶ 6-7.) At an unspecified point in time, Defendant Jack Huston Castle formed the Texas Dental and Dentist Choice companies, both of which operated under the name "Lovett Dental." (Id. ¶ 24.) Defendant Castle is not a dentist. (Id.) After forming Lovett Dental, Castle entered into an agreement with Defendant Ziegenbein under which Ziegenbein assumed an ownership interest in Texas Dental and Dentist Choice and worked as a dentist at both. (Id.) Castle owned all of the dental equipment, leased the office space, managed the patient records, hired office staff, and directed Defendant Ziegenbein. (Id. ¶ 25.) Defendant Ziegenbein paid Castle a portion of the monthly revenue generated by Lovett Dental. (Id.) According to Plaintiffs, "operat[ing] a dental service without a license issued by the Texas State Board of Dental Examiners(TSBDE) . . . was the main goal of Defendant Castle and Defendant Ziegenbein's illegal scheme." (Id. ¶ 26.)
Between 2005 and 2007, Plaintiffs Albert and Anita Robinson obtained dental services from Lovett Dental after seeing advertisements for Lovett Dental in the telephone book. (Id. ¶ 49.) These advertisements stated that Dentist Choice "was a dental service provider that was licensed and regulated by the state of Texas." (Id.) Defendant Safari performed an "inadequate root canal" on Mr. Robinson, which had to be redone. (Id. ¶ 50.) Mr. Robinson still suffers from the pain of the root canal. (Id.) Defendant Freeman performed an "inadequate root canal" on Mrs. Robinson, as a result of which she has had to seek "additional and ongoing dental services." (Id. ¶ 149.)
Plaintiffs filed suit against some or all Defendants in the 151st District Court for Harris County. (Id. ¶ 33.) During the litigation, Defendants Freeman and Ziegenbein's attorneys produced what the Plaintiffs claim were altered medical records of Plaintiff Mrs. Robinson. (Id. ¶ 51.) The attorneys also improperly combined attorneys' fees for Defendants Freeman and Ziegenbein, charging fees for Defendant Freeman before he was a party to the suit. (Id. ¶¶ 34-39.) Defendants Freeman and Ziegenbein were awarded these improperly-combined attorneys' fees in State Court (Id. ¶ 33), but that order was later vacated. (Id. ¶ 55.) Although the fees known by Plaintiffs to be improper were ultimately removed, Plaintiffs were not given an opportunity to prove or seek discovery as to the invalidity of other aspects of the remaining fees. (Id.)
During the litigation, Mr. Robinson received a phone call from Dentist Choice's attorney demanding $10,000, and stating that if the money was not provided, the attorneywould tell the State Court of Mr. Robinson's prior arrest in New Jersey and Mr. Robinson's other litigation. (Id. ¶¶ 55-56.)
In December 2008, Defendant Castle conspired with Defendants Meckel and Terry (employees of the Mercer-Vincinage Family Division in New Jersey) to have a fraudulent restraining order issued against Mr. Robinson for an incident that allegedly took place in New Jersey in 1990. (Id. ¶ 41.) This Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was "entered into the National Registry" in 2008, and faxed to Mr. Robinson in Texas in September of 2009. (Id. ¶ 41.) Mr. Robinson attempted to purchase a gun in Florida in September 2009, but the vendor refused because of the outstanding TRO. (Id. ¶ 43.) The TRO affected Mr. Robinson's business such that he could not "work on, test, transport, modify, inspect, touch, develop, or sell [his] shotgun system." (Id. ¶ 61.) Mr. Robinson believes that the envelope in which the TRO was sent did not look to be 20 years old, but rather "it looked as if it was just manufactured and placed into the file recently." (Id. ¶ 47.)
Defendants the New Jersey Judiciary, the Mercer-Vincinage Family Divison, Sue Regan, Sandra L. Terry, and Douglas Meckel ("New Jersey Defendants") file this Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).
This court must dismiss a case when the plaintiff fails to establish personal jurisdiction. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2). "Absent a rule or statute to the contrary, ... a federal court [may] exercise jurisdiction over only those defendants who are subject to thejurisdiction of courts of the state in which the court sits." Point Landing, Inc. v. Omni Capital International, Ltd., 795 F.2d 415, 419 (5th Cir. 1986), affd sub nom. Omni Capital International, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97 (1987). A non-resident defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas if two criteria are met: (1) the non-resident defendant must be amenable to service of process under Texas' long arm statute, and (2) the exercise of personal jurisdiction must be consistent with due process. Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., 234 F.3d 863, 869 (5th Cir. 2000). Because the Texas long-arm statute, codified in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code at §§ 17.041 to 17.045, is coterminous with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Court's constitutional due process inquiry addresses both prongs of the due process analysis. Command-Aire Corp. v. Ontario Mechanical Sales and Service Inc., 963 F.2d 90, 93-94 (5th Cir. 1992).
To comport with constitutional due process, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the defendant purposefully availed herself of the benefits and protections of Texas law, thereby establishing "minimum contacts" with Texas such that the defendant could reasonably have anticipated being haled into court there; and (2) that, under the circumstances, the exercise of personal jurisdiction "does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Id. at 94 ().
The minimum contacts requirement can be met through contacts sufficient to confer either general or specific jurisdiction. Cent. Freight Lines, Inc. v. APA Transp.Corp., 322 F.3d 376, 381 (5th Cir. 2003). A court may exercise general jurisdiction when a defendant's contacts with the forum state are substantial, continuous, and systematic, even though unrelated to the litigation. Id. Specific jurisdiction exists "[w]hen a nonresident 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." Id. (citation omitted).
"When a nonresident defendant presents a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the district court's jurisdiction over the nonresident." Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185, 1192 (5th Cir. 1985) While the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists, he or she need only present a prima facie showing, and need not establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Love N' Care, Ltd. v. InstaMix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465, 469 (5th Cir. 2006).
As against the New Jersey Defendants, Plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. Robinson have alleged violations of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 1962, and 1343; violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and common law conspiracy and defamation claims. (Doc. No. 55.) The New Jersey Defendants have moved to dismiss for lack of...
To continue reading
Request your trial