Emiabata v. Seton Healthcare Family
20-1801-cv
| 2d Cir. | Sep 20, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Philip Emiabata (pro se) sued Seton Healthcare Family (Dell Seton Medical Center), the Institute of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, and two Texas-based doctors in the District of Connecticut alleging defendants did business in all 50 states.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the district court granted an extension to file an opposition but Emiabata did not file one within the time allowed.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and later denied Emiabata’s Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration.
- Emiabata argued he lacked notice of the corrected deadline, contended venue transfer was warranted, and sought jurisdictional discovery on appeal.
- The Second Circuit treated Emiabata’s opening brief as failing to address the personal-jurisdiction basis for dismissal (waiving that issue) but reviewed the denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal and the denial of reconsideration, rejecting Emiabata’s venue and discovery arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction / dismissal | Connecticut court has jurisdiction; defendants do business in all 50 states (and Emiabata asserts he lacked opportunity to respond) | Defendants lacked contacts with Connecticut; dismissal proper | Dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction affirmed; Emiabata waived appellate challenge by not addressing jurisdiction in opening brief |
| Denial of motion for reconsideration (Rule 59(e)) | Court erred by denying reconsideration because Emiabata did not receive corrected deadline; requested transfer too | Emiabata failed to file opposition within granted extension; no overlooked controlling law or facts | Denial affirmed; district court did not abuse its discretion because Emiabata pointed to nothing the court overlooked |
| Venue / transfer request | Case should be transferred (e.g., to W.D. Tex. at Waco) | No timely or adequate request in district court; no showing transfer appropriate | Waived and meritless on appeal; Emiabata provided no coherent basis for transfer |
| Jurisdictional discovery | Plaintiff sought discovery to prove contacts | Plaintiff never requested such discovery below; defendants submitted affidavits showing no contacts | Denied: request was not made in district court and Emiabata failed to controvert affidavits |
Key Cases Cited
- McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2017) (pro se filings are liberally construed but must still comply with rules)
- Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 1998) (appellate briefs must clearly state issues per Fed. R. App. P. 28(a))
- LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1995) (appellate courts normally will not decide issues not raised on appeal)
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (standard for granting a Rule 59(e) motion: court must have overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters)
- Trikona Advisers Ltd. v. Chugh, 846 F.3d 22 (2d Cir. 2017) (denial of reconsideration reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- U.S. ex rel. McAllan v. City of New York, 248 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2001) (pro se parties who consent to electronic notice must monitor the docket)
- McDonald v. Head Crim. Ct. Supervisor Officer, 850 F.2d 121 (2d Cir. 1988) (pro se status does not relieve a litigant of procedural obligations)
- Gerstenbluth v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 728 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2013) (issues raised only in passing may be treated as waived)