Mitchell v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.
2:19-cv-02289
D. Kan.Jun 3, 2019Background
- Plaintiffs Julie and Timothy Mitchell (Missouri residents) sued multiple Johnson & Johnson–affiliated defendants after Julie received two Attune knee implants in Paola, Kansas, alleging product defects and related torts (negligence, strict liability, warranty, fraud, etc.).
- Defendants are not domiciled in Missouri; they are organized or have principal places of business in other states/countries.
- Mrs. Mitchell’s surgeries and implantation occurred in Kansas; she receives some post-operative care in Missouri and lives in Missouri.
- Plaintiffs allege defendants market, distribute, and sell the Attune device nationwide and within Missouri, and assert reliance on defendants’ marketing and promotional activities.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; plaintiffs alternatively sought transfer to the District of Kansas under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
- The court found Missouri lacks specific jurisdiction over defendants but concluded transfer to the District of Kansas is in the interest of justice; motions were denied as moot and the case transferred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Missouri has specific personal jurisdiction over defendants | Mitchells: injuries felt and post‑surgery care occur in Missouri; defendants market/sell device in Missouri, so jurisdiction proper | Defendants: implantation and relevant events occurred in Kansas; defendants lack sufficient contacts with Missouri for specific/general jurisdiction | Court: No specific jurisdiction—plaintiffs’ contacts are unilateral or unconnected to defendants’ Missouri activities |
| Whether Keeton supports jurisdiction based on in‑state effects | Mitchells: Keeton permits jurisdiction where plaintiff suffers harm in forum and defendant markets there | Defendants: Keeton requires defendant’s in‑state conduct to give rise to the claim; here the conduct relates to Kansas | Court: Keeton inapplicable—no showing the claim arose from defendants’ Missouri conduct |
| Whether nationwide/in‑state marketing and stream‑of‑commerce allegations establish jurisdiction | Mitchells: general marketing and placing product in Missouri suffice | Defendants: generalized marketing not tied to plaintiffs’ claim or to any Missouri-directed contacts with these plaintiffs | Court: Generalized allegations insufficient; plaintiffs do not allege reliance on Missouri‑directed ads or purchase in Missouri |
| Whether transfer to District of Kansas is appropriate | Mitchells: alternatively request transfer under §1406(a) if jurisdiction lacking | Defendants: do not oppose transfer; contend specific jurisdiction lies where device was implanted (Kansas) | Court: Transfer to D. Kan granted in the interest of justice to cure jurisdictional defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Pangaea, Inc. v. Flying Burrito LLC, 647 F.3d 741 (8th Cir.) (prima facie jurisdictional showing standard on pretrial motion)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts due process framework)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (specific jurisdiction requires connection between forum contacts and claims)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (contacts must be created by defendant, not unilateral plaintiff connections)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (plaintiff’s unilateral activity cannot establish defendant’s forum contacts)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment/purposeful direction analysis)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (jurisdiction upheld where defendant’s in‑state circulation gave rise to claim)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (limits on general jurisdiction)