ARORA v. BUCKHEAD FAMILY DENTISTRY, INC.
1:16-cv-01806
D.D.C.Jan 8, 2018Background
- In 2013 in Atlanta, plaintiff Sanjay Arora received a dental crown from Dr. Travis Paige of Buckhead Family Dentistry; the crown was manufactured by Global Dental Solutions and covered by Cigna dental insurance.
- Arora alleges the installed crown was a lower-quality, non-noble crown despite being billed and represented as a high-noble crown; he experienced pain and later had the crown removed.
- Arora sued pro se in D.C. against Buckhead, Global (and its president), and Cigna asserting breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, and a conspiracy to commit fraud among other claims.
- The Court previously found no personal jurisdiction over Buckhead and Global and questioned service on Cigna; Cigna waived service objections and renewed its motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The Court applied Georgia substantive law, dismissed all claims against Cigna for failure to plead required elements (and for fraud-based claims, Rule 9(b) particularity), and ordered transfer of the remaining claims against Georgia-based defendants to the Northern District of Georgia under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Georgia or D.C. law governs substantive claims | Arora did not contest application of Georgia law | Cigna argued Georgia law applies because injury, conduct, and relationships occurred in Georgia | Georgia law governs (most significant relationship) |
| Whether Cigna owed a fiduciary duty to Arora | Cigna owed a duty based on insurer/insured relationship and Cigna’s representations (and ERISA argument) | Under Georgia law, insurer-insured fiduciary relationship generally does not exist; no ERISA allegation | Breach of fiduciary duty claim dismissed; no fiduciary duty pleaded |
| Whether negligent misrepresentation pleaded adequately | Cigna negligently represented Buckhead as vetted/qualified and Arora relied to his economic detriment | Cigna argued allegations are conclusory, reliance not shown, and post-injury conduct cannot have caused injury | Negligent misrepresentation claim dismissed for failure to plead factual basis for knowledge, justifiable reliance, and causation |
| Whether conspiracy/fraud pleaded with requisite particularity | Cigna conspired with providers to conceal substitution of crown | Cigna argued conspiracy/fraud not pleaded with Rule 9(b) specificity and lacks supporting facts | Conspiracy/fraud dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b) for lack of particularized allegations |
| Whether case should be transferred to N.D. Ga. or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction | Arora sought transfer (concerned about statutes of limitation) | Defendants argued transfer futile because claims lack merit and diversity amount might be lacking | Court ordered transfer to N.D. Ga. under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (transferee has jurisdiction; transfer serves interest of justice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim; court need not accept legal conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard and rejection of conclusory pleading)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (plaintiff’s good-faith amount-in-controversy allegation is accepted unless legal certainty shows otherwise)
- Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (jurisdictional amount must appear to a legal certainty to dismiss)
- Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (1962) (interest of justice can require transfer rather than dismissal to avoid penalizing plaintiff for venue error)
- Burnett v. N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co., 380 U.S. 424 (1965) (transfer may be appropriate to prevent statute-of-limitations bar when venue uncertainties cause mistake)