Burmeister

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANE DOE, Case No. 22-cv-03178-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

v. DISMISS AND OPENING

JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

DANIEL PETERSON, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 33 Defendants.

The Peterson defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied without prejudice. At this point, there are too many unknowns to determine that there is no jurisdiction. For example: Did Peterson’s talk in Santa Clara constitute recruitment? Did Peterson do other such talks or otherwise recruit patients in California? To what extent, if any, did Peterson’s California medical license facilitate his treatment of the plaintiff? The parties may take jurisdictional discovery for 90 days from the date of this order. The parties should keep in mind the concerns expressed at the hearing: The defendants are trying to conceive of suit-related conduct very, very narrowly, and the plaintiff is not fully acknowledging the extent to which it is conduct by a defendant—not facts about a plaintiff—that creates personal jurisdiction. See generally Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014). The…