United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
DORIS RACHER, SANDRA CISPER, EARLENE ADKISSON, Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Eryetha Mayberry, Deceased; and JAMES KINGSBURY, Personal Representative of the Estate of and Next of Kin to Rachel Mary Kingsbury, Deceased, Plaintiffs,
PATTI LUSK, an Individual, and RPM FAMILY INTERESTS LLC, a Texas limited liability company, Defendants.
MlLES LaGRANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Complaint, filed March 1, 2017. On March 22,
2017, plaintiffs filed their response, and on March 29, 2017,
defendants filed their reply.
have final judgments against non-party Ron
Lusk. Defendant Patti Lusk is the wife of Ron
Lusk. She is domiciled in and a citizen of the State of Texas
and resides in Dallas, Texas. Defendant RPM Family Interests
LLC (“RPM”) is a Texas limited liability company,
and its sole member, owner, and manager is defendant Patti
years prior to the filing of the fraudulent transfer case
against Ron Lusk, Ron Lusk and Ginger Barsotti formed an
Oklahoma limited liability company known as Physician's
Choice in Care, LLC, with Ron Lusk owning 50% and Ginger
Barsotti owning the remaining 50%. In September 2014, Ron Lusk
and defendant Patti Lusk formed defendant RPM. Plaintiffs
allege that defendant Patti Lusk and Ron Lusk formed
defendant RPM, in part, for the purpose of fraudulently
conveying Ron Lusk's assets to defendant RPM and to
hinder, defraud, or delay plaintiffs' and Ron Lusk's
other creditors from satisfying their claims against Ron
Lusk. In December 2014, Ron Lusk sold his ownership interest
in Physician's Choice in Care, LLC and directed the
transfer of $500, 000 of proceeds from the sale to
defendants. Plaintiffs allege that Ron Lusk conspired with
defendant Patti Lusk and transferred these proceeds so as to
avoid the claims of plaintiffs and other creditors.
Plaintiffs further allege the $500, 000 in proceeds from the
sale of Ron Lusk's ownership interest in Physician's
Choice in Care, LLC is substantially all of Ron Lusk's
remaining assets, and Ron Lusk has no remaining assets or
other property to satisfy plaintiffs' claims.
February 2, 2017, plaintiffs filed the instant action against
defendants, asserting a fraudulent transfer claim. Defendants
now move, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2), to dismiss plaintiffs' Complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction. Specifically, defendants assert that
plaintiffs cannot prove the required facts to subject
defendants to the general or specific personal jurisdiction
of an Oklahoma court.
court's jurisdiction is contested, the plaintiff has the
burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See ASAT
Sports Sci., Inc. v. CLF Distrib. Ltd., 514 F.3d 1054,
1056 (10th Cir. 2008). “Where a district court
considers a pre-trial motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the
plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal
jurisdiction to defeat the motion.” Id. at
To obtain personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant
in a diversity action, a plaintiff must show both that
jurisdiction is proper under the laws of the forum state and
that the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend due
process. Because Oklahoma's long-arm statute permits the
exercise of any jurisdiction that is consistent with the
United States Constitution, the personal jurisdiction inquiry
under Oklahoma law collapses into the single due process
Intercon, Inc. v. Bell Atl. Internet Solutions,
Inc., 205 F.3d 1244, 1247 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal
The Due Process Clause permits the exercise of personal
jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant so long as there
exist minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum
State. The “minimum contacts” standard may be met
in two ways. First, a court may, consistent with due process,
assert specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if
the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at
residents of the forum, and the litigation results from
alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those
activities. When a plaintiff's cause of action does not
arise directly from a defendant's forum-related
activities, the court may nonetheless maintain general
personal jurisdiction over the defendant based on the
defendant's business contacts with the forum state.
Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).
A specific jurisdiction analysis involves a two-step inquiry.
First [a court] must consider whether the defendant's
conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he
should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.
Second if the defendant's actions create sufficient
minimum contacts, [a court] must then consider whether the
exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant offends
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Benton v. Cameco Corp., 375 F.3d 1070, 1075 (10th
Cir. 2004) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
“A defendant's contacts are sufficient if the
defendant purposefully directed its activities at residents
of the forum, and . . . the plaintiff's claim arises out
of or results from actions by the defendant himself
that create a substantial connection with the forum
state.” Id. at 1076 (internal quotations and
citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Further, ...