descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3245, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5637 Jane Doe, for and on Behalf of Herself, Surviving Spouse, and on Behalf of the Surviving Children, a Doe, B Doe, and C Doe, of Decedent John Doe, and Independently as Representative of the Estate of John Doe, and as the Representative of Classes of Persons Similarly Situated v. American National Red Cross, a Foreign Corporation United Blood Services, a Division of Blood Systems, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Council of Community Blood Centers, a Foreign Corporation the University of Arizona S. Gerald Sandler, M.D., Alfred Katz, M.D., and Roger Dodd, M.D., in Their Individual and Official Capacities, Jane Doe, for and on Behalf of Herself, Surviving Spouse, and on Behalf of the Surviving Children, a Doe, B Doe, and C Doe, of Decedent John Doe, and Independently as Representative of the Estate of John Doe, and as the Representative of Classes of Persons Similarly Situated v. American National Red Cross, and United States of America, and Dennis Donohue, M.

Citation: 112 F.3d 1048Docket: 95-16658

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; May 2, 1997; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves a class action lawsuit initiated by a widow on behalf of herself, her late husband's estate, and similarly situated plaintiffs against several entities, including the American National Red Cross and Dr. Dennis Donohue. The lawsuit arose from the death of her husband due to AIDS contracted from a blood transfusion. The plaintiff alleged negligence and constitutional torts against Donohue, who was then the FDA's Director of the Division of Blood and Blood Products, for failing to ensure a safe blood supply. The district court granted Donohue's motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity and ruled that it lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing that Donohue's activities did not establish sufficient minimum contacts with Arizona, thus failing to meet the requirements of the Arizona long-arm statute and federal due process. The court applied the 'but for' test and found no causal connection between Donohue's actions and the claimed injuries. Consequently, the dismissal was upheld, and the plaintiff's claims against Donohue were terminated.

Legal Issues Addressed

Application of the 'But For' Test in Jurisdictional Analysis

Application: The 'but for' test did not support jurisdiction over Donohue as the injury did not arise from his actions within the forum.

Reasoning: The 'but for' test, adopted in Shute v. Carnival Cruise Lines, was applied to assess the connection between the plaintiff's injury and Donohue's activities, concluding that the injury did not arise from his actions since he did not control blood distribution.

Personal Jurisdiction under Arizona Long-Arm Statute

Application: The Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over Donohue, as his activities did not meet the required minimum contacts with Arizona.

Reasoning: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Donohue, ruling that the court lacked personal jurisdiction.

Purposeful Availment in Establishing Jurisdiction

Application: The court found that Donohue's involvement in blood product dissemination was peripheral and insufficient to establish purposeful availment in Arizona.

Reasoning: Donohue's involvement in blood product dissemination into Arizona was deemed peripheral and insufficient to establish purposeful availment, as his contacts with the state were too attenuated.

Qualified Immunity in Constitutional Torts

Application: The court granted Donohue's motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, protecting him from liability for his role in ensuring blood safety.

Reasoning: The district court granted Donohue's motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, a decision that was certified for immediate appeal.

Reasonableness in Exercising Personal Jurisdiction

Application: The court determined that asserting personal jurisdiction over Donohue was unreasonable as his activities were not directed at Arizona.

Reasoning: Reasonableness in asserting personal jurisdiction only arises if the defendant's activities are purposefully directed at the forum state, which was not the case for Donohue.