Henderson v. Laser Spine Institute LLC
815 F. Supp. 2d 353
D. Me.2011Background
- Dale Henderson sued Laser Spine Institute and Dr. Stefan Prada for fraud, contract, misrepresentation, unfair trade practices, and negligence related to Florida treatments.
- Defendants removed to federal court in Maine; motion to dismiss challenged personal jurisdiction, venue, Florida-imposed malpractice statutes, and Maine Health Security Act pre-litigation requirements.
- Court found personal jurisdiction and proper venue, and that Florida statute of limitations generally applies only if a foreign statutory enactment applies; MHSA pre-litigation requirements were not yet satisfied.
- Court stayed proceedings to require compliance with MHSA pre-litigation screening, dismissed Count VII (negligence against Prada) and denied other grounds to dismiss.
- Plaintiff must submit to Maine MHSA pre-litigation screening and provide periodic status reports; otherwise case may be dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maine has specific jurisdiction over LSI and Prada | Henderson contends Maine has targeted, purposeful contacts that relate to the suit. | LSI and Prada lack purposeful Maine contacts and the suit arises from Florida treatment. | Yes, Maine exercises specific jurisdiction. |
| Whether venue in the District of Maine is proper or a transfer is warranted | Most events occurred in Maine; venue proper here. | Florida events suggest improper venue or a transfer is appropriate. | Venue proper in District of Maine; transfer denied. |
| Which statute of limitations governs the claims (Florida §95.11 vs Maine law) and Malpractice statute | Maine statute controls; not predicated on a Florida foreign enactment. | Florida statute of limitations may apply due to Florida-based conduct. | Maine statute of limitations applies; Florida statute does not bar the action. |
| Whether and how the Maine Health Security Act applies to pre-litigation | MHSA may apply to professional negligence; pre-litigation screening required. | MHSA requirements must be met to proceed. | MHSA applies; stay and dismissal without prejudice for failure to comply; pre-litigation screening required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (minimum contacts and purposeful availment analysis for due process)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1984) (advertising and contacts may justify forum-state jurisdiction)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (effects of nationwide advertising and knowingly targeted conduct)
- Nowak v. Tak How Invs., Ltd., 94 F.3d 708 (1st Cir. 1996) (foreseeability and ongoing forum-based relationship support jurisdiction)
- Phillips Exeter Acad. v. Howard Phillips Fund, Inc., 196 F.3d 284 (1st Cir. 1999) (relatedness and forum-based activities central to specific jurisdiction)
- Harlow v. Children's Hosp., 432 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2005) (gestalt factors for reasonableness in due process)
- Sawtelle v. Farrell, 70 F.3d 1381 (1st Cir. 1995) (transmission of information into the forum constitutes contact)
- uBID, LLC v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, 623 F.3d 421 (7th Cir. 2010) (national advertising and interactive website can support jurisdiction)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (foreseeability and the scope of forum-state contacts)