Bergdoll v. CooperSurgical, Inc.

KRISTIN BERGDOLL and JADE BERGDOLL, Plaintiffs, v. COOPERSURGICAL, INC., et al., Defendants.

No. 6:22-cv-3018-MDH

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southern Division

February 22, 2023

ORDER

DOUGLAS HARPOOL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are the following Motions to Dismiss: Defendant Utah Medical Product, Inc.'s (“UTMD”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21); Defendant The Cooper Companies (“TCC”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23); Defendant CooperSurgical (“CSI”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc 25); and Defendant Femcare, LTD.'s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 43). Defendant UTMD moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint arguing Missouri has no personal jurisdiction over UTMD. Defendant also argues the Complaint fails to state a claim and that venue is improper. Defendant TCC moves to dismiss arguing Missouri has no personal jurisdiction over TCC based on Plaintiffs' allegations, that the Complaint fails to state a claim, and that venue is improper. CSI moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint arguing it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Finally Femcare moves to dismiss arguing the Court has no personal jurisdiction over Femcare, Plaintiff fails to state a claim and venue is improper. The motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for review.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit for damages under Missouri law based on injuries they allege to have sustained in connection with the use of Filshie Clips, a medical device used in tubal ligations. Plaintiff Kristin Bergdoll underwent a tubal ligation procedure in 2004 in which a Filshie Clip was utilized. Plaintiffs' Complaint, filed on January 20, 2022, alleges claims based on design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, strict liability negligence, violation of consumer protection laws, gross negligence, and punitive damages against the Defendants. In general, Plaintiffs allege the Filshie Clip migrated after the initial procedure causing injury and requiring surgical intervention. Plaintiffs further contend Defendants did not warn or adequately inform Plaintiffs or their healthcare providers about how frequent the migrations occurred, the severity and permanency of potential injuries, and their notice of adverse reports and injuries.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“To survive a motion to dismiss [under 12(b)(6)], a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint is facially plausible where its factual content “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The plaintiff must plead facts that show more than a mere speculation or possibility that the defendant acted unlawfully. Id.; Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While the Court accepts the complaint's factual allegations as true, it is not required to accept the plaintiff's legal conclusions. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.

The court's assessment of whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 679. The reviewing court must read the complaint as a whole rather than analyzing each allegation in isolation. Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009).

To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(2), “a plaintiff need make only a prima facie case that personal jurisdiction exists.” Downing v. Goldman Phipps, PLLC, 764 F.3d 906, 911 (8th Cir 2014). Personal jurisdiction may be general or specific, but to establish it “a plaintiff must state sufficient facts in the complaint to support a reasonable inference that the defendant can be subjected to jurisdiction within the state.” Morningside Church, Inc. v. Rutledge, 9 F.4th 615, 619 (8th Cir. 2021); citing Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc. v. Bassett & Walker Int'l, Inc., 702 F.3d 472, 474-75. “The plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.” Id., citing Whaley v. Esebag, 946 F.3d 447, 451 (8th Cir. 2020).

For general jurisdiction to exist, a defendant must have “affiliations with the state [that] are so systematic as render it essentially at home in the foreign state.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 139 (2014) (internal quotations omitted). Specific jurisdiction exists in a diversity suit only if permitted by the forum's long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viasystems, Inc. v. EBM-Papst St. Georgen GmbH & Co., KG, 646 F.3d 589, 593 (8th Cir. 2011). In adopting the long-arm statute, the Missouri legislature intended to provide for jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the due process clause. K-V Pharmaceutical Co. v. J. Uriach & CIA, S.A., 648 F.3d 588, 592 (8th Cir. 2011). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the exertion of jurisdiction over a defendant not “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int' Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 321, 316 (1945).

“Due process requires that a defendant have certain ‘minimum contacts' with the forum State for the State to exercise specific jurisdiction.” Morningside Church, Inc. v. Rutledge, 9 F.4th at 619; citing Creative Calling Sols., Inc. v. LF Beauty Ltd., 799 F.3d 975, 980 (8th Cir. 2015). The defendant's connection with the forum state must “be more than random, fortuitous, or attenuated, and must permit the defendant to reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Id. (internal citations omitted). The contacts therefore have to be based on “some act by which the defendant purposely avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Id.

The Court applies a “five-factor test for assessing the sufficiency of a defendant's contacts,” considering: “(1) the nature and quality of contacts with the forum state; (2) the quantity of such contacts; (3) the relation of the cause of action to the contacts; (4) the interest of the forum state in providing a forum for its residents; and (5) [the] convenience of the parties.” Id. at 619. The first three factors are “of primary importance,” while the fourth and fifth factors “carry less weight.” Id. at 620.

“Minimum contacts must exist either at the time the cause of action arose, the time the suit is filed, or within a reasonable period of time immediately prior to the filing of the lawsuit.” Pecoraro v. Sky Ranch for Boys, Inc., 340 F.3d 558, 562 (8th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff must set forth facts to show that Defendants have “purposefully directed [their] activities at Missouri residents, and the claim of this suit either arises out of or relates to these activities.” Lakin v. Prudential Sec. Inc.,348 F.3d 704, 707 (8th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted).

DISCUSSION

1. UTMD'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 21).

Defendant UTMD moves to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint arguing the Court lacks personal jurisdiction; Plaintiff fails to state a claim; and that venue is improper.

Defendant UTMD is a Utah Corporation with its principal place of business in Midvale, Utah. Defendant states it is a resident and citizen of Utah. UTMD alleges it did not conduct Filshie Clip business in the State of Missouri and had no purposeful contacts with physicians using Filshie Clips in the State of Missouri. As a result, UTMD's motion states it does not have sufficient minimum contacts with Missouri regarding this suit and maintaining the suit in Missouri will offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Plaintiffs contend UTMD has availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in the State of Missouri. Plaintiffs contend UTMD sold its products in Missouri and intended its product be used by medical professionals treating patients in Missouri. Further, Plaintiffs argue a review of UTMD's arguments, and the declaration filed in support of its motion, establish that it currently sells, markets, and distributes Filshie Clips in Missouri and has done so since at least February 2019.^[1] As a result, Plaintiffs argue minimum contacts existed at the time the suit was filed (in January 2022) or within a reasonable amount of time immediately prior to the filing. See Pecoraro v. Sky Ranch for Boys, Inc., 340 F.3d 558, 561 (8th Cir. 2003) (“Minimum contacts must exist either at the time the cause of action arose, the time the suit is filed, or within a reasonable period of time immediately prior to the filing of the lawsuit.”). Plaintiffs allege that UTMD has subjected itself to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.

Plaintiffs further argue even if UTMD was not specifically “involved” in the Filshie Clip utilized in Plaintiff's 2004 tubal ligation (at a time prior to UTMD acquiring Femcare who manufactured the Filshie Clips during that time) UTMD was marketing and selling Filshie Clips when the suit was filed and at the time when Plaintiff suffered the adverse symptoms related to the clip's migration that was discovered in October 2021. Finally, Plaintiffs argue UTMD is currently selling Filshie Clips in Missouri and marketing them as safe and effective availing themselves to jurisdiction in this Court.

The Court finds Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges facts sufficient to allege that UTMD currently sells, distributes and markets the Filshie Clips in Missouri and did so at the time the suit was filed. Plaintiffs also allege UTMD had availed itself to the jurisdiction of ...