# Russe v. UHS-Pruitt Holdings, Inc.

> District Court, E.D. North Carolina · February 13, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10252541

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** February 13, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10252541

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:22-CV-103-BO

RUPA RUSSE, individually and as Executor of the )
Estate of Katherine M. Vickers, )
Plaintiff, )
)
) ORDER
)
UHS-PRUITT HOLDINGS, INC., PRUITT )
HEALTH, INC., PRUITTHEALTH, INC., )
UNITED HEALTH SERVICES OF NORTH )
CAROLINA, INC., )
PRUITT HEALTH — RALEIGH, LLC, )
PRUITTHEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT, INC., )
PRUITTHEALTH CONNECT, INC., )
PRUITTHEALTH VENTURES, INC., )
PRUITT HEALTH — CHINA, LLC, )
Defendants. )

This cause comes before the Court on motions to dismiss filed by defendant UHS-Pruitt
Holdings, Inc. and PruittHealth-Raleigh pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has failed to file a response, and the time for doing so has
expired. The motions are thus ripe for ruling and, for the following reasons, are granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed her complaint in this case on April 12, 2022, alleging claims for ordinary
negligence, medical and professional negligence, medical malpractice, wrongful death, corporate
negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. The
claims arise following the death of her mother, Katherine Vickers, who had been a patient at North
Carolina nursing facility. Plaintiff had attempted to file her complaint on March 22, 2022, and later

moved to file her complaint nunc pro tunc. The Court denied plaintiff's request. [DE 8]. The Court
also permitted plaintiff an extension of time to effect service. Id.
Plaintiff had previously filed a complaint alleging claims for ordinary negligence, medical
negligence, medical malpractice, wrongful death, and corporate negligence in Wake County, North
Carolina Superior Court. [DE 17-1]. This complaint, which was filed on October 13, 2020, alleged
claims against Pruitt Health, Inc. only. Jd. On March 23, 2021, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her
Superior Court complaint without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the North Carolina Rules of
Civil Procedure. [DE 17-2]. This rule provides that if an action is voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice, “a new action based on the same claim may be commenced within one year after such
dismissal.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 41(a)(1).
Two defendants have appeared in this action and have filed the instant motions to dismiss.
They contend that they are the only two defendants that have been served. The Court’s docket does
not reflect proof of service as to any remaining defendants, and the time for service pursuant to
Rule 4(m) and this Court’s extension has passed.
Defendant UHS-Pruitt Holdings, Inc. has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). Defendant PruittHealth-Raleigh has
moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has
failed to respond to either motion, and the Court will consider each motion in turn.’
DISCUSSION
I. Personal jurisdiction
Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes dismissal for lack of
personal jurisdiction. When personal jurisdiction has been challenged on the papers alone, the

' Plaintiff has, at all times in this action, been represented by counsel.

plaintiff must make a prima facie case showing that personal jurisdiction exists, and a court
construes all facts and inferences in favor of finding jurisdiction. Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673,
676 (4th Cir. 1989). A court may consider affidavits attached to a motion when determining
whether the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. Grayson v.
Anderson, 816 F.3d 262, 268 (4th Cir. 2016). “If the existence of jurisdiction turns on disputed
factual questions the court may resolve the challenge on the basis of a separate evidentiary hearing,
or may defer ruling pending receipt at trial of evidence relevant to the jurisdictional question.”
Combs, 886 F.2d at 676.
Due process requires that a defendant have “certain minimum contacts . . . such that the
maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283 (2014) (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310,
316 (1945)) (internal quotations omitted). Two types of personal jurisdiction are recognized:
general and specific. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, San Francisco Cty.,
137 S. Ct. 1773, 1780 (2017). To satisfy due process, a plaintiff asserting general jurisdiction must
establish that the defendant’s “affiliations with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to
render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 127
(2014) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)).
The Due Process Clause prohibits a court from exercising specific jurisdiction over a defendant
unless that defendant has “certain minimum contacts ... such that the maintenance of the suit does
not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” Int’! Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316
(quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)).
Plaintiff alleges that all defendants are corporations foreign to North Carolina which
maintain a principal place of business in the State of Georgia, and that “[sJome, or all, of

Defendants conduct business in North Carolina as registered foreign corporations who
intentionally conduct business in North Carolina.” [DE 3 {f 7, 8]. Plaintiff alleges that her mother,
Ms. Vickers, “entered into a contract for services to be performed by Defendant through their
employees, agents, and servants . . ..” Id. J 126.
Plaintiff's complaint makes no specific allegations regarding UHS-Pruitt Holdings, Inc.
and its contacts with the State of North Carolina. “Blanket conclusory allegations as to multiple
defendants are insufficient” to demonstrate the existence of personal jurisdiction. Vision Motor
Cars, Inc. v. Valor Motor Co., 981 F. Supp. 2d 464, 468 (M.D.N.C. 2013).
UHS-Pruitt Holdings has further rebutted plaintiff's general allegations by the affidavit of
its general counsel. [DE 15-1] Crosby Aff. See Vision Motor Cars, 981 F. Supp. 2d at 468 (“Once
a defendant presents evidence indicating that the requisite minimum contacts do not exist, the
plaintiff must come forward with affidavits or other evidence in support of its position.”). UHS-
Pruitt is incorporated and has its principal place of business in the State of Georgia, it does not
conduct business in North Carolina, and it is not registered to do business in North Carolina under
another name. Crosby Aff. {7 4-6. UHS-Pruitt does not own, operate, or control any healthcare
facilities in North Carolina and is not a party to any contract with Ms. Vickers. Jd. {J 8-13. Mere
registration to do business in North Carolina and designation of a registered agent in North
Carolina is insufficient to subject UHS-Pruitt to general jurisdiction. Pub. Impact, LLC v. Bos.
Consulting Grp., Inc., 117 F. Supp. 3d 732, 738 (M.D.N.C. 2015).
There are further no grounds on which to find the Court has specific jurisdiction over UHS-
Pruitt Holdings. As discussed above, UHS-Pruitt does not own, operate, or control any North
Carolina nursing or care facilities and it is not a party to any contract with Ms. Vickers. Plaintiff's

claim that the corporate defendant, Pruitt, was responsible for the actions of PruittHealth-Raleigh
employees is conclusory and unsupported by any factual allegations.
In sum, plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege or demonstrate that the Court has personal
jurisdiction over defendant UHS-Pruitt Holdings, and her claims against this defendant are
properly dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2).
Il. Failure to state a claim
Defendant PruittHealth-Raleigh moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Papasan
v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 283 (1986). When acting on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “the
court should accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and should view the complaint in a light
most favorable to the plaintiff.” Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir.1993). A
complaint must allege enough facts to state a claim for relief that is facially plausible. Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Facial plausibility means that the facts pled “allow[]
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,”
and mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by conclusory statements do not
suffice. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint must be dismissed if the factual
allegations do not nudge the plaintiff's claims “across the line from conceivable to plausible.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
PruittHealth-Raleigh (PHR) argues first that plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable
statute of limitations. “Affirmative defenses such as a statute of limitations defense can only be
reached on a motion to dismiss ‘if all facts necessary to the affirmative defense ‘clearly appear[] on
the face of the complaint.’” Bankaitis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 229 F.Supp.3d 381, 384 (M.D.N.C.
2017) (quoting Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458, 464 (4th Cir. 2007)).

The Court notes that plaintiff's counsel has agreed that, should the complaint not receive a
filed date of March 22, 2022, her claims would be time-barred. [DE 5 { 9]. The statutes of
limitations applicable to plaintiff s claims, all brought under North Carolina law, are either two or
three years. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-53(4) (wrongful death claim must be brought within two years
from the date of accrual of the claim, which is the date of death); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(5) (claims
for professional and ordinary negligence as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress must
be filed within three years); N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-52(1) (breach of contract claims must be filed within
three years). As is alleged in plaintiff's complaint, plaintiffs mother died on October 16, 2018,
and she was last treated on October 15, 2018. Compl. ff 63, 71, 80, 81. Each of plaintiff's claims
against PHR, which were not filed until April 2022, are therefore beyond the statute of limitations
and therefore time barred.
Moreover, plaintiff's prior voluntary dismissal in North Carolina state court, on which she
relied to extend the limitations period in filing this suit, applies only to her claims against defendant
PruittHealth, Inc., the only named defendant in the state court action. [DE 17-1]; N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 1A-1, Rule 41. Where the defendants are “distinct and separate corporate entities”, as PHR has
argued and plaintiff has not rebutted, the savings clause of a Rule 41(a) dismissal under North |
Carolina law applies only to the entity named in the original complaint. Cherokee Ins. Co. By &
Through Weed v. R/I, Inc., 97 N.C. App. 295, 299 (1990). Thus, any tolling of the limitations
period which could be applied in this case would apply only to defendant PruittHealth. However,
as noted above, plaintiff's complaint in this action was not received by the clerk until April 12,
2022, more than one year following her state court Rule 41 dismissal. See Allen v. Atlas Box &
Crating Co., No. 20-1910, 2023 WL 1486313, at *5 (4th Cir. Feb. 3, 2023) (“an action under

federal law is commenced for limitations purposes when a plaintiff delivers a complaint to the
district court clerk”).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, defendant UHS-Pruitt Holdings’ motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction [DE 15] is GRANTED. Defendant PruittHealth-Raleigh’s motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim [DE 17] is also GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims are time-barred
and her complaint against all defendants is hereby DISMISSED. The clerk is DIRECTED to close
this case.

SO ORDERED, this [ day of February 2023.

= La.
TERRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10252541. Public record. Not legal advice.