Case Law Brown v. Kerkhoff

Brown v. Kerkhoff

Document Cited Authorities (289) Cited in (86) Related

504 F.Supp.2d 464

Heidi BROWN, and Heidi Brown as Parent and Next Friend of Trevor Rhiner, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dr. Paul KERKHOFF; Kerkhoff Chiropractic; The Masters Circle; Dr. Larry Markson; Dr. Bob Hoffman; Dr. Dennis Perman; and John Does, Defendants.

No. 4:06-cv-00342-JEG.

United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, Central Division.

August 23, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Kimberley K. Baer, Steven P. Wandro, Wandro & Associates PC, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiffs.

James H. Gilliam, Sean P. Moore, Brown Winick Graves Gross Baskerville Schoenebaum, Des Moines, IA, Jonathan R. Poole, Mary M. Brockington, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP, John E. Floyd, Bondurant Mixon & Elmore LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants.

ORDER

GRITZNER, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Clerk's No. 21) filed by Defendants Kerkhoff Chiropractic, The Masters Circle, Inc., Larry Markson, Bob Hoffman, Dennis Perman, and Paul Kerkhoff; a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Clerk's No. 22) filed by Defendants The Masters Circle, Inc., Larry Markson, Bob Hoffman, and Dennis Perman; and a Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint and Dissolve or Modify the State Court's June 15, 2006, Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1450 filed by Plaintiffs (Clerk's No. 33). Plaintiffs are represented by Kimberley Baer, Steven Wandro, and Kasey Kincaid. Defendants are represented by Mary Brockington, Jonathan Poole, James Gilliam, and Sean Moore. Following an April 27, 2007, hearing, these matters are fully submitted and are ready for disposition.1 

                                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY...........................................................474
  I.  Factual Allegations................................................................474
      A.  The Defendants.................................................................474
      B.  Defendants' Alleged Wrongful Practices.........................................476
      C.  The Proposed Class Representatives.............................................477
          1.  Heidi Brown and Trevor Rhiner..............................................477
          2.  Cynthia Christian..........................................................478
      D.  Nonresident Defendants' Contacts with Iowa.....................................478
          1.  The Masters Circle.........................................................478
              a.  Physical Presence......................................................478
              b.  Virtual Presence.......................................................481
          2.  Individual Nonresident Defendants..........................................481
              a.  Markson................................................................481
              b.  Hoffman................................................................482
              c.  Perman.................................................................482
II. Procedural History...................................................................483
DISCUSSION...............................................................................483

  I.  Issues Related to Standing.........................................................483
      A.  Relevance of the State Court's June 2006 Order.................................483
      B.  Standing of Brown and Rhiner to Sue The Masters Circle, Hoffman
            Markson, and Perman..........................................................484
          1.  Applicable Legal Standards.................................................484
          2.  Discussion.................................................................485
          3.  The Third Amended Complaint................................................486
      C.  Conclusion.....................................................................487
 II.  Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction................................487
      A.  Applicable Legal Standards.....................................................487
          1.  Burden of Proof............................................................487
          2.  Constitutional and Statutory Considerations................................488
              a.  Service of Process.....................................................488
              b.  Constitutional Parameters..............................................489
      B.  Personal Jurisdiction Under RICO...............................................489
          1.  Statutory Authorization....................................................489
              a.  Statutory Provisions...................................................489
              b.  Analysis...............................................................490
                   i.  The Argument for Subsection (d)...................................491
                  ii.  The Argument for Subsection (b)...................................491
                 iii.  Application of Subsection (b).....................................493
                       (a) The Ninth Circuit Approach....................................494
                       (b) The Tenth Circuit Approach....................................494
                       (c) Application of the Tests......................................495
          2.  Constitutional Considerations..............................................497
          3.  Conclusion.................................................................497
      C.  Personal Jurisdiction Under the Calder "Effects" Test..........................497
          1.  Applicable Legal Standards.................................................497
          2.  Discussion.................................................................498
      D.  Personal Jurisdiction Under the Iowa Long-Arm Statute..........................499
          1.  Applicable Legal Principles................................................499
          2.  Summary of Defendants' Contacts............................................501
              a.  The Masters Circle.....................................................501
              b.  Individual Defendants..................................................503
          3.  Nature, Quality, and Quantity of the Nonresident Defendants'
                Contacts, and the Relation of Such Contacts to Plaintiffs' Causes of
                Action...................................................................503
                a.  The Masters Circle...................................................503
                     i.  Internet Contacts...............................................503
                         (a) Legal Standards.............................................504
                         (b) Analysis....................................................506
                    ii.  Non-Internet Contacts...........................................508
                   iii.  Individual Defendants...........................................512
                    iv.  Conclusion......................................................512
          4.  Interest of the Forum State and Convenience of the Parties.................512
          5.  Conclusion.................................................................513
      E.  Personal Jurisdiction Under A "Conspiracy Jurisdiction" Theory.................513
      F.  Conclusion.....................................................................518
III.  Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.....................................518
      A.  Applicable Legal Standards.....................................................518
          1.  Rule 8(a) Claims (Non-Fraud Based Claims)..................................518
          2.  Rule 9(b) Claims (Fraud Based Claims)......................................523
      B.  Civil Conspiracy...............................................................525
          1.  Elements of the Claim......................................................525
          2.  Allegations of an Agreement or Understanding to Effect a Wrong.............526
              a.  Allegations of the Second Amended Petition.............................526
              b.  Analysis...............................................................527

          3.  Allegations of Injury or Damage............................................528
          4.  Conclusion.................................................................528
      C.  Ongoing Criminal Conduct.......................................................529
          1.  Overview of the Statute....................................................529
          2.  Purported Pleading Deficiencies............................................530
          3.  "Specified Unlawful Activity" Allegations..................................530
              a.  Theft by Deception Under Iowa Law......................................530
                   i.  Legal Standards...................................................530
                  ii.  Arguments of the Parties..........................................531
                 iii.  Allegations of the Second Amended Petition........................531
                  iv.  Analysis..........................................................532
                   v.  Conclusion........................................................534
              b.  Insurance Fraud Under Iowa and New York Law............................534
                   i.  Legal
...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Start a free trial
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2012
Fraserside IP L.L.C. v. Letyagin
"...exercising personal jurisdiction over [the] nonresident Defendant is consistent with principles of due process.” Brown v. Kerkhoff, 504 F.Supp.2d 464, 499–500 (S.D.Iowa 2007); see Bell Paper Box, Inc. v. U.S. Kids, Inc. (Bell Paper I), 22 F.3d 816, 818 (8th Cir.1994) (“[W]hen a state constr..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2012
Fraserside IP L.L.C. v. Netvertising Ltd.
"...exercising personal jurisdiction over [the] nonresident Defendant is consistent with principles of due process.” Brown v. Kerkhoff, 504 F.Supp.2d 464, 499–500 (S.D.Iowa 2007); see Bell Paper Box, Inc. v. U.S. Kids, Inc. ( Bell Paper I ), 22 F.3d 816, 818 (8th Cir.1994) ( “[W]hen a state con..."
Document | Arkansas Supreme Court – 2011
Gibbs v. Primelending
"...have rejected the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction, concluding that it is inconsistent with due process, see, e.g., Brown v. Kerkhoff, 504 F.Supp.2d 464 (S.D.Iowa 2007); Paolino v. Argyll Equities, L.L.C., 401 F.Supp.2d 712 (W.D.Tex.2005); Silver Valley Partners, LLC v. De Motte, 400 F.Sup..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa – 2011
High Plains Constr., Inc. v. Gay
"...not “eliminate another state's ability to exercise personal jurisdiction over a party to [ ] such a contract.” Brown v. Kerkhoff, 504 F.Supp.2d 464, 502 n. 28 (S.D.Iowa 2007). Instead, a party's means of enforcing a forum selection clause has been addressed by courts as a concern of venue. ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2012
Fraserside IP L.L.C. v. Gamma Entm't., Inc.
"...exercising personal jurisdiction over [the] nonresident Defendant is consistent with principles of due process." Brown v. Kerkhoff, 504 F. Supp. 2d 464, 499-500 (S.D. Iowa 2007); see Bell Paper Box, Inc. v. U.S. Kids, Inc. (Bell Paper I), 22 F.3d 816, 818 (8th Cir. 1994) ("[W]hen a state co..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
2 books and journal articles
Document | Antitrust Class Actions Handbook – 2018
Filing a Class Action
"...of a conspiracy may be attributed to the other members of the conspiracy’”), while others are more skeptical, see Brown v. Kerkhoff, 504 F. Supp. 2d 464, 518 (S.D. Iowa 2007) (stating “conspiracy theory” gives “short shrift to the constitutional mandate that there be some connection between..."
Document | Antitrust Class Actions Handbook – 2018
Table of Cases
"...Shops, Inc., 155 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 1998), 55, 56, 180 Brown Shoe Co Inc v United States 370 US 294 (1962), 317 Brown v. Kerkhoff, 504 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D. Iowa 2007), 25 Brown v. Pro Football Inc., 146 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 1992), 2 Brown v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 982 F.2d 386 (9th Cir. 1992), ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 books and journal articles
Document | Antitrust Class Actions Handbook – 2018
Filing a Class Action
"...of a conspiracy may be attributed to the other members of the conspiracy’”), while others are more skeptical, see Brown v. Kerkhoff, 504 F. Supp. 2d 464, 518 (S.D. Iowa 2007) (stating “conspiracy theory” gives “short shrift to the constitutional mandate that there be some connection between..."
Document | Antitrust Class Actions Handbook – 2018
Table of Cases
"...Shops, Inc., 155 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 1998), 55, 56, 180 Brown Shoe Co Inc v United States 370 US 294 (1962), 317 Brown v. Kerkhoff, 504 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D. Iowa 2007), 25 Brown v. Pro Football Inc., 146 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 1992), 2 Brown v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 982 F.2d 386 (9th Cir. 1992), ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2012
Fraserside IP L.L.C. v. Letyagin
"...exercising personal jurisdiction over [the] nonresident Defendant is consistent with principles of due process.” Brown v. Kerkhoff, 504 F.Supp.2d 464, 499–500 (S.D.Iowa 2007); see Bell Paper Box, Inc. v. U.S. Kids, Inc. (Bell Paper I), 22 F.3d 816, 818 (8th Cir.1994) (“[W]hen a state constr..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2012
Fraserside IP L.L.C. v. Netvertising Ltd.
"...exercising personal jurisdiction over [the] nonresident Defendant is consistent with principles of due process.” Brown v. Kerkhoff, 504 F.Supp.2d 464, 499–500 (S.D.Iowa 2007); see Bell Paper Box, Inc. v. U.S. Kids, Inc. ( Bell Paper I ), 22 F.3d 816, 818 (8th Cir.1994) ( “[W]hen a state con..."
Document | Arkansas Supreme Court – 2011
Gibbs v. Primelending
"...have rejected the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction, concluding that it is inconsistent with due process, see, e.g., Brown v. Kerkhoff, 504 F.Supp.2d 464 (S.D.Iowa 2007); Paolino v. Argyll Equities, L.L.C., 401 F.Supp.2d 712 (W.D.Tex.2005); Silver Valley Partners, LLC v. De Motte, 400 F.Sup..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa – 2011
High Plains Constr., Inc. v. Gay
"...not “eliminate another state's ability to exercise personal jurisdiction over a party to [ ] such a contract.” Brown v. Kerkhoff, 504 F.Supp.2d 464, 502 n. 28 (S.D.Iowa 2007). Instead, a party's means of enforcing a forum selection clause has been addressed by courts as a concern of venue. ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2012
Fraserside IP L.L.C. v. Gamma Entm't., Inc.
"...exercising personal jurisdiction over [the] nonresident Defendant is consistent with principles of due process." Brown v. Kerkhoff, 504 F. Supp. 2d 464, 499-500 (S.D. Iowa 2007); see Bell Paper Box, Inc. v. U.S. Kids, Inc. (Bell Paper I), 22 F.3d 816, 818 (8th Cir. 1994) ("[W]hen a state co..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Used by the world's leading companies

Herbert Smith Freehills Logo Princeton University Logo University of Oxford Logo K2 Intelligence LLC Logo Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Logo Kobre & Kim LLP Logo Wiley Logo ABA Logo Perez Lorca Logo Fisher Phillips Logo
vLex Footer Logo
© 2025 vLex. All rights reserved.