United States District Court, D. Minnesota
IN RE NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION,
v.
NHL, et al., This document relates to Adams
Todd
Harvey, Pro Se, Plaintiff.
Daniel
J. Connolly, Joseph M. Price, Linda S. Svitak, and Aaron D.
Van Oort, Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP, John H. Beisner, and
Jessica D. Miller, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, Shepard Goldfein, and Matthew M. Martino, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Joseph Baumgarten and Adam M.
Lupion, Proskauer Rose LLP, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SUSAN
RICHARD NELSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION
This
matter comes before the Court on Defendant National Hockey
League's (the “NHL”) motion to dismiss
plaintiff Todd Harvey's claims in the Complaint for lack
of personal jurisdiction. [Doc. No. 41.] See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(2). For the reasons set forth below, the Court
grants the motion and dismisses Harvey's claims without
prejudice.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The
general facts pertaining to the underlying MDL are set forth
in previous rulings from this Court, and are incorporated
herein by reference. See NHL Players' Concussion
Injury Litig., No. 14-MDL-2551 [Doc. No. 126], 2015 WL
1334027 (D. Minn. March 25, 2015); NHL Players'
Concussion Injury Litig., No. 14-MDL-2551, 327 F.R.D.
245 (D. Minn. 2018). Stated briefly, this case arises from
repetitive head trauma-including concussive and
sub-concussive head injuries-sustained by former NHL players
during their professional careers. (Class Action Compl. [Doc
No. 1] (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 1-9.) The NHL,
according to Plaintiffs, knew or should have known, that by
“promoting fighting” in the sport, players would
suffer brain trauma with debilitating long-term effects.
(Id. ¶¶ 5-9, 24, 430.) The effects
suffered from this NHL-sanctioned fighting include
“memory loss, dementia, depression, [Chronic Traumatic
Encephalopathy] ‘CTE', and its related
symptoms.” (Id. ¶ 318.) Moreover,
Plaintiffs allege that the NHL concealed studies linking
repetitive concussive events to neurodegenerative conditions.
(Id. ¶¶ 27-37.)
Based
on these allegations, Plaintiffs assert six counts against
the NHL. (See id. ¶¶ 480-535.) These
counts mimic all six counts in the MDL complaint. See NHL
Players' Concussion Injury Litig., No. 14-MDL-2551
[Doc. No. 615]. In Count I, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgment that the NHL knew, or reasonably should have known,
that (i) the head impacts Plaintiffs suffered were likely to
substantially increase risks of neurodegenerative disorders;
(ii) the NHL had a duty to advise Plaintiffs of these risks,
but concealed and misled Plaintiffs concerning these risks;
and (iii) the NHL recklessly endangered Plaintiffs. (Compl.
¶¶ 480-483.) In Count II, Plaintiffs allege that,
as a result of the NHL's misconduct, they have
experienced injuries that have increased their risk of
developing neurodegenerative disorders, and that costly
medical monitoring procedures are necessary to enable
Plaintiffs to obtain early detection and diagnosis of those
conditions. (Id. ¶¶ 484-500.)
Counts
III and IV assert negligence-based causes of action.
(Id. ¶¶ 501-518.) In Count III, Plaintiffs
allege that the NHL owed its players a duty of reasonable
care to manage player safety and the NHL breached this duty
by, among other things, promoting a culture of violence and
failing to warn players of the potential negative effects of
head injuries. (Id. ¶¶ 501-508.) As a
result of this breach, Plaintiffs allege they have suffered
or are suffering injury, including long-term neurological
damage. (Id. ¶¶ 506-508.) In Count IV,
Plaintiffs assert a claim for negligent misrepresentation by
omission. (Id. ¶¶ 509-518.) They allege
that a special relationship existed between the NHL and
Plaintiffs by virtue of the NHL's “superior special
knowledge of material medical information” that was not
readily available to players and by virtue of the NHL's
undertaking to communicate some safety information to players
and the public, such that the NHL had a duty to disclose
accurate information to Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶
510.) According to Plaintiffs, the NHL breached its duty by
negligently omitting material information regarding the link
between the type of head injuries sustained in the NHL and
cognition-impairing conditions. (Id. ¶¶
516-517.) Plaintiffs assert that they reasonably relied to
their detriment on these negligent misrepresentations by
omission. (Id. ¶ 513.)
Finally,
Counts V and VI assert fraud-based causes of action.
(Id. ¶¶ 519-535.) In Count V, Plaintiffs
assert a claim for fraudulent concealment based on the
NHL's alleged knowing concealment of material information
regarding the risks of head injuries suffered while playing
in the NHL, the NHL's alleged expectation that Plaintiffs
would rely on its silence and fraudulent concealment, and
Plaintiff's alleged reasonable reliance on that silence
to their detriment. (Id. ¶¶ 519-526.) And,
in Count VI, Plaintiffs assert a claim for fraud by omission
and failure to warn. (Id. ¶¶ 527-535.) In
this fraud claim, Plaintiffs allege the NHL was in a position
of superior knowledge about the long-term effects of head
hits. (Id. ¶ 532.) According to Plaintiffs, the
NHL breached its duty to disclose this information and
Plaintiffs reasonably relied on these fraudulent omissions to
their detriment. (Id. ¶¶ 534-535.)
Harvey,
a Canadian citizen, is the only remaining plaintiff in this
action. (Id. ¶¶ 122-127.) Harvey played in
the NHL from 1993 to 2006. (Id. ¶ 122.) To
support the allegations above, he asserts that he suffered
roughly eight concussions and numerous head injuries.
(Id. ¶¶ 124-125.) As a result of his time
in the NHL, he also alleges that he presently “suffers
from post-concussion symptoms including, but not limited to,
headaches, memory loss, and sleep problems” and
“is at an increased risk for developing serious, latent
neurodegenerative disorders and diseases.”
(Id. ¶¶ 126-127.) Harvey's NHL career
spanned “671 regular season games and 61 playoff
games” and he was involved in 55 hockey fights.
(Id. ¶¶ 123-124.) The Complaint is silent
about the location of these hockey games or fights. Harvey
never played on an NHL team in Minnesota. (Id.)
In this
motion, the NHL challenges this Court's personal
jurisdiction over Harvey and his claims. (See
Def.'s Mem. Of Law in Supp. Of Mot. To Dismiss Compl.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) [Doc. No. 43]
(“Def.'s Mem. Dismiss”).) The NHL-organized
as an unincorporated association (Compl. ¶ 256)-argues
that it is not subject to general jurisdiction in Minnesota
because its headquarters and principal place of business is
in New York. (Def.'s Mem. Dismiss at 1, 4-6.) As to
specific jurisdiction, the NHL argues that Harvey does not
allege any connection between his claims and the NHL's
contacts with Minnesota. (Id. at 2, 6-9.)
Harvey,
proceeding pro se, did not respond to the NHL's
motion.
III.
...