Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
NAGELE v. HOLY REDEEMER VISITING NURSE AGENCY
February 25, 1993
HARRIET NAGELE and ADOLPH NAGELE (w/h)
HOLY REDEEMER VISITING NURSE AGENCY, INC.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: BY THE COURT; MARVIN KATZ
Plaintiffs, Harriet and Adolph Nagele (wife and husband), currently reside in Florida. See Complaint at P 1. Defendant Holy Redeemer Visiting Nurse Agency, Inc. is a New Jersey non-profit corporation, has its principal place of business located at 1801 Route 9 North, Swainton, New Jersey, and is licensed to practice in-home nursing only in New Jersey.
See Motion to Dismiss; see also Cohen Affidavit. Defendant is also a member of the Holy Redeemer Health System, Inc., which is a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation. See Motion to Dismiss; see also Cohen Affidavit. In January 1991, Plaintiff Harriet underwent quadruple bypass surgery and during her hospitalization developed sacral decubitus ulcers (bedsores). See Complaint at PP 6 & 7. Plaintiff Harriet alleges that she was discharged with her sacral ulcers unhealed. See id. at P 8. Upon discharge, Defendant provided in-home nursing care for Plaintiff Harriet from January 26, 1991 to February 6, 1991. See id. at P 11. Defendant provided this care to Plaintiff Harriet at her sister-in-law's New Jersey home. See Plaintiffs' Response. Plaintiff Harriet alleges that during this time her sacral ulcers increased in size and became foul-smelling, and that she required further hospitalization for her sacral ulcers. See Complaint at PP 12 & 13. Plaintiffs commenced suit against Defendant alleging that Defendant's negligence caused the sacral ulcers to worsen and have requested compensation for Plaintiffs' numerous medical expenditures and various losses.
Section 1391(a) of Title 28 specifies the judicial districts where a diversity action shall be brought as:
(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.
As will be examined below, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's contact with this action satisfies none of these three venue possibilities.
A. Holy Redeemer Visiting Nurse Agency Does Not Reside in This District, Nor Is It Subject to Personal Jurisdiction Here
Holy Redeemer Visiting Nurse Agency is a New Jersey non-profit corporation and, as is true for any corporation, resides in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). "Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a district court to assert personal jurisdiction over a non-resident to the extent permissible under the law of the state where the district court sits." North Penn Gas v. Corning Natural Gas, 897 F.2d 687, 689 (3d Cir. 1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 847, 112 L. Ed. 2d 101, 111 S. Ct. 133 (1990). Pennsylvania law allows a court to exercise personal jurisdiction based upon the following requirements:
(a) General Rule -- The existence of any of the following relationships between a person and the Commonwealth shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable the tribunals of this Commonwealth to ...
Buy This Entire Record For