Hulewat v. Medical Management Resource Group LLC
2:24-cv-00377
| D. Ariz. | May 16, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging a data breach exposed their personal and protected health information (PII/PHI) through Defendants’ partnership with Medical Management Resource Group, L.L.C. d/b/a American Vision Partners (AVP).
- Defendants Eye Associates of Nevada d/b/a Wellish Vision Institute (WVI) and Marc Ellman, M.D., P.A. d/b/a Southwest Eye Institute (SWEI) moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2).
- SWEI is a Texas corporation with offices in Texas and New Mexico; WVI is a Nevada corporation with no offices outside Nevada; neither has offices or agents in Arizona.
- Plaintiffs argued Defendants’ relationship with AVP, which is headquartered in Arizona, provides sufficient minimum contacts for jurisdiction in Arizona.
- Plaintiffs requested jurisdictional discovery to potentially support their argument for jurisdiction.
- The court evaluated both general and specific personal jurisdiction and denied both parties' requests for oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General personal jurisdiction | Not argued by Plaintiff. | No ongoing or systematic contacts with Arizona. | Court lacks general jurisdiction over Defendants. |
| Specific personal jurisdiction | Defendants' partnership with AVP in Arizona establishes contacts. | Contracts are with AVP subsidiaries, not AVP directly; no Arizona acts. | No purposeful availment or acts in Arizona found. |
| Purposeful availment | Defendants knowingly transmitted PII/PHI to AVP in Arizona. | No evidence of affirmative acts or business targeting Arizona. | No affirmative conduct or substantial Arizona connection. |
| Jurisdictional discovery | Plaintiffs request discovery to find jurisdictional facts. | Plaintiffs' request is speculative and lacks specific justification. | Discovery request denied; no showing discovery needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (limits general personal jurisdiction over out-of-state corporations to where they are essentially "at home")
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (due process requires minimum contacts with the forum state for personal jurisdiction)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (clarifies requirements for both general and specific jurisdiction over nonresidents)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (specific jurisdiction requires controversy to arise out of or relate to defendant’s forum contacts)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (a contract with a forum party does not automatically confer jurisdiction; must look at parties' course of dealing)