Background
California resident Jeannette Burmeister sued a Nevada physician and medical entities over her participation in an Ampligen clinical trial. She alleged they withheld a prepaid supply of medication, removed her from the trial in retaliation for demands concerning the drug and unused funds, and engaged in improper medical and billing practices.
The defendants had provided Burmeister years of infusions and follow-up care connected with California. But the disputed drug supply was to be stored and used at the Nevada clinic, and her removal was from the Nevada study. The Northern District of California dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Specific personal jurisdiction requires claims that arise out of or relate sufficiently to a defendant’s forum contacts. Although the Nevada defendants purposefully directed some medical activity toward California, Burmeister’s seven claims centered on conduct and obligations located in Nevada.
The California treatment was neither a but-for cause of the alleged withholding and expulsion nor closely related to those injuries under the broader “relate to” test. The panel distinguished a recent case where an out-of-state doctor transmitted prescriptions into the forum as an integral part of the treatment that produced the claim. It also confirmed that the appeal was timely because the district court failed to enter judgment in a separate document; under Rule 58, judgment was deemed entered after 150 days.
Key Takeaways
- Purposeful contacts with California are not enough; the asserted claims must arise from or closely relate to those contacts.
- A long treatment relationship can still fail the relatedness requirement when the challenged clinical-trial decisions occurred elsewhere.
- Healthcare plaintiffs should identify the particular communications, prescriptions, payments, or treatment acts connecting each claim to California.
- Failure to enter a separate Rule 58 judgment can extend the effective deadline for a notice of appeal.
Why It Matters
Telemedicine, multistate clinical trials, and cross-border care create many California contacts, but they do not automatically expose an out-of-state provider to suit here for every dispute. Practitioners should map the operative injury to specific forum conduct rather than relying on the overall relationship. The decision also offers an important appellate-deadline safeguard when a final order is not followed by a separate judgment.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket