Arora v. Buckhead Family Dentistry, Inc.
263 F. Supp. 3d 121
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- In 2013–2014 in Atlanta, Arora received a permanent dental crown from Dr. Travis Paige/Buckhead Family Dentistry; the crown (manufactured by Global Dental Solutions) was later found to contain primarily nickel, causing gum injury and persistent pain.
- Arora later moved to the D.C. area and filed a diversity action in Sept. 2016 against Buckhead, Paige, Global, Global’s president Abramson, and Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, asserting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and conspiracy.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Global, Abramson, Buckhead, Paige) and for insufficient service / failure to state a claim (Cigna). Arora—pro se—moved for an extension to effect service and for leave to file a second amended complaint.
- The court held that Arora’s alleged original injury occurred in Georgia where the crown was installed; continued pain after moving does not constitute a separate “tortious injury” in D.C. under the D.C. long-arm statute.
- Arora attempted service on Cigna via CT Corporation in D.C. and by certified mail to Cigna offices in Hartford and Philadelphia; the court found service via CT Corp ineffective and that Arora had not yet carried his burden to show proper service to any authorized agent, but granted a 45-day extension to effect service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether D.C. courts have personal jurisdiction over Global, Abramson, Buckhead, and Paige under D.C. long‑arm statute | Arora argues jurisdiction based on his presence in D.C. while still experiencing pain and some marketing emails from Buckhead | Defendants contend the alleged tortious conduct and original injury occurred in Georgia and they lack significant contacts with D.C. | Court: No personal jurisdiction; original injury occurred in Georgia; continued pain after relocation is a "secondary" injury and not a D.C. tortious injury under §13‑423(a)(4) |
| Whether marketing emails or other contacts suffice to establish jurisdiction in D.C. | Emails to Arora in D.C. demonstrate Buckhead transacted business in D.C. | Emails were unrelated to the tort and cannot form the jurisdictional basis for claims that arose from out‑of‑state conduct | Court: Emails insufficient—activity must give rise to the claim; D.C. long‑arm not satisfied |
| Whether Arora properly served Cigna under Rule 4 and whether time to serve should be extended | Arora contends he served Cigna via CT Corp (D.C.) and later by certified mail to Hartford/Philadelphia and requests extension due to confusion and CT’s response | Cigna contends CT Corp is not its registered agent for the named entity and that service attempted at corporate offices was untimely and substantively inadequate | Court: Service via CT Corp ineffective; Arora has not proven service on an authorized agent; granted 45‑day extension to effect proper service (else dismissal without prejudice) |
| Whether Arora should be allowed to amend complaint (second amended complaint) | Arora seeks leave to amend to cure defects | Defendants oppose; argue amendments would be futile or premature given jurisdiction/service defects | Court: Denied without prejudice—amendment futile as to jurisdictional defects and premature as to claims against Cigna while service/personal jurisdiction unresolved |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (construe factual allegations as true on motion to dismiss)
- Leaks v. Ex‑Lax, 424 F. Supp. 413 (D.D.C. 1976) (continuing pain after out‑of‑state injury does not create jurisdiction in forum visited later)
- Etchebarne‑Bourdin v. Radice, 982 A.2d 752 (D.C. 2009) (distinguishing original vs. secondary injury for long‑arm jurisdiction)
- GTE New Media Servs. Inc. v. BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (jurisdictional pleading standards)
- Mann v. Castiel, 681 F.3d 368 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (Rule 4(m) extension and burden to prove service)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (subject‑matter/personal jurisdiction prerequisites to ruling on merits)
- Ingersoll‑Rand Co. v. United States, 780 F.2d 74 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (mandatory transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 when court lacks jurisdiction)