Richard M. Fleming, Appellant v. Iowa Board of Medical Examiners and Board Members, et al., Appellees

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Richard M. Fleming, Appellant v. Iowa Board of Medical Examiners and Board Members, et al., Appellees

No. 17-7103

Decided: September 08, 2017

BEFORE: Kavanaugh and Pillard, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

ORDER

Upon consideration of appellant's brief and the supplement thereto, and the motion for summary reversal, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary reversal be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that appellant show cause, within 30 days of the date of this order, why the district court's order should not be affirmed on the ground that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over any of the defendants. See Chambers v. Burwell, 824 F.3d 141, 143 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (this court “may affirm the district court on any ground supported by the record”). Pursuant to the District of Columbia's “long-arm” statute, D.C. Code § 13-423(a), the district court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant when a claim arises from the defendant's “transacting any business in the District of Columbia,” “causing tortious injury in the District of Columbia by an act or omission in the District of Columbia,” or “causing tortious injury in the District of Columbia by an act or omission outside the District of Columbia if he regularly does or solicits business, engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed, or services rendered, in the District of Columbia.” See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k) (territorial limits of effective service); International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (the exercise of personal jurisdiction is constitutional if a defendant has “certain minimum contacts” with the forum, “such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”).

The response to the order to show cause may not exceed the length limitations established by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(d)(2) (5,200 words if produced using a computer; 20 pages if handwritten or typewritten). Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of the appeal for lack of prosecution. See D.C. Cir. Rule 38.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to appellant both by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by first class mail.

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY:

Robert J. Cavello Deputy Clerk

Per Curiam