Gloria v. Gomez v. Felicia Wilson, Dds, Ms ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2332-22
GLORIA V. GOMEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FELICIA WILSON, DDS, MS,
and IMPLANT DENTISTRY
ASSOCIATES OF
PHILADELPHIA, P.C.,
Defendants-Respondents.
_____________________________
Submitted April 9, 2024 – Decided April 15, 2024
Before Judges Puglisi and Haas.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Morris County, Docket No. L-1065-20.
Gold, Albanese & Barletti, LLC, attorneys for appellant
(Walter A. Laufenberg, on the brief).
Burns White, LLC, attorneys for respondents (Erika
Lynn Lower, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
This case returns to us after remand proceedings directed by our previous
opinion. Gomez v. Wilson, No. A-1061-20 (App. Div. Jan. 24, 2022) (slip op.
at 8). Because the parties are thoroughly familiar with this decision and the
underlying procedural history and facts, we do not repeat them here in detail.
In our prior opinion, we held that New Jersey did not have specific
jurisdiction over defendants in this dental malpractice case. Id. at 6.1 However,
we determined that the trial court should have given the parties the opportunity
to obtain discovery on the question of whether New Jersey had general
jurisdiction over defendants before considering defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint. Id. at 8.
During the remand proceedings, the parties learned that "ClearChoice
Dental Implant Centers," one of the defendants plaintiff had named in her
complaint, had been improperly included because it was not a legal corporate
entity. Therefore, the caption of the complaint was amended to state that
"Implant Dentistry Associates of Philadelphia, P.C." (Implant Dentistry) was the
corporate entity2 responsible for maintaining the dental office in Fort
1
The parties do not contest this ruling in this appeal.
2
Implant Dentistry is a Pennsylvania corporation.
A-2332-22
2
Washington, Pennsylvania where plaintiff received all of her treatment relative
to her cause of action.
Felicia Wilson, the dentist who performed the dental implant procedure
on plaintiff, confirmed that she exclusively treated plaintiff in the Pennsylvania
office and that she was not domiciled in New Jersey. 3 Wilson also asserted that
the ClearChoice facility that plaintiff alleged she maintained in Mount Laurel,
New Jersey was an entirely separate entity from Implant Dentistry. Plaintiff
provided no competent evidence to the contrary during discovery.
Plaintiff served two sets of written interrogatories upon defendants during
the remand and defendants answered both of them. The trial court later gave
plaintiff another opportunity to seek additional discovery by extending the
discovery period to September 30, 2022. However, plaintiff did not seek any
further discovery. She also never filed a motion asking for more responsive
answers or any other information from defendants.
Defendants thereafter filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for
lack of jurisdiction. Defendants also asserted that plaintiff's complaint was
barred by the statute of limitations.
3
Wilson is listed as the incorporator of Implant Dentistry in its Articles of
Incorporation.
A-2332-22
3
Following oral argument, the trial court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint with prejudice on jurisdictional grounds. 4 In its written
decision, the court found that New Jersey lacked general jurisdiction over
Implant Dentistry because plaintiff failed to show that this Pennsylvania
corporation had any contacts with this State and plaintiff conceded that all of
her treatment occurred in the corporation's Pennsylvania office. Likewise, New
Jersey had no jurisdiction over Wilson because she was not domiciled in this
State and performed all of her work on plaintiff in Pennsylvania. This appeal
followed.
On appeal, plaintiff contends the trial court erred in concluding that New
Jersey lacked general jurisdiction over defendants. We disagree.
Whether a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should have
been granted presents a mixed question of law and fact that must be resolved at
the outset of the proceedings. Rippon v. Smigel, 449 N.J. Super. 344, 359 (App.
Div. 2017). On appeal, we examine whether the trial court's factual findings
were supported by substantial credible evidence; however, we review de novo
whether those facts supported the court's legal determination on the jurisdiction
4
Because the court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, it did not
address defendants' statute of limitations argument.
A-2332-22
4
issue. Patel v. Karnavati Am., LLC, 437 N.J. Super. 415, 423 (App. Div. 2014).
The plaintiff "bears the burden of pleading sufficient facts to establish
jurisdiction." Ibid. "When a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is made,
it is only the jurisdictional allegations that are relevant, not the sufficiency of
the allegations respecting the cause of action." Rippon, 449 N.J. Super. at 359-
60.
For a state to have personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant and
satisfy due process, the defendant must have certain minimum contacts with the
forum state. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316-17 (1945). Thus,
the primary focus of the personal jurisdiction inquiry is the defendant's
relationship to the forum state. Jardim v. Overley, 461 N.J. Super. 367, 375
(App. Div. 2019). The United States Supreme Court has recognized two types
of personal jurisdiction: general and specific. Ibid.5
Under general jurisdiction, a defendant may be sued for "virtually any
claim, even if unrelated to the defendant's contacts with the forum," provided
that the defendant's activities "can be characterized as 'continuous and
systematic' contacts." Lebel v. Everglades Marina, Inc., 115 N.J. 317, 323
5
As previously noted, we determined that New Jersey lacked specific
jurisdiction over defendants and, therefore, we do not further address that issue.
A-2332-22
5
(1989) (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S.
408, 416 (1984)). Such contacts require that it essentially be "at home" in the
foreign state, such as by having its principal place of business there or being
incorporated there. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 128 (2014) (quoting
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)).
Thus, for there to be general jurisdiction, there must be "extensive" contacts
between a defendant and a forum. Mische v. Bracey's Supermarket, 420 N.J.
Super. 487, 492 (App. Div. 2011) (quoting Johnston v. Multidata Sys. Int'l
Corp., 523 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2008)).
Here, defendants had no contacts with New Jersey. Wilson treated
plaintiff in Pennsylvania and is not domiciled in New Jersey. Therefore New
Jersey has no jurisdiction over her. Dutch Run-Mays Draft, LLC v. Wolf Block,
LLP, 450 N.J. Super. 590, 602 (App. Div. 2017). Implant Dentistry is a
Pennsylvania corporation that maintains its only office in that state. All of
plaintiff's treatments occurred in that Pennsylvania office. 6 We are therefore
6
As she did in the first appeal, plaintiff again attempts to tie Wilson to a
ClearChoice office in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. However, plaintiff has
provided no competent evidence to support her claim on this point and she
admits in her current appellate brief that "[i]t remains unknown when the Mount
Laurel, New Jersey office came into existence and what the current status of the
office is."
A-2332-22
6
satisfied that the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint against both
defendants for lack of jurisdiction.
Affirmed.
A-2332-22
7