Burmeister v. Peterson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 4 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JEANNETTE BURMEISTER, No. 25-2690 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:22-cv-03178-AMO v. MEMORANDUM* DANIEL L. PETERSON, M.D.; DANIEL L. PETERSON, MD, LTD.; SIERRA INTERNAL MEDICINE, Defendants - Appellees, and SIMMARON RESEARCH, Defendant.

JEANNETTE BURMEISTER, No. 25-3926 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-03178-AMO v. DANIEL L. PETERSON; DANIEL L.

PETERSON, MD, LTD.; SIERRA INTERNAL MEDICINE, Defendants - Appellees, and SIMMARON RESEARCH, Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Araceli Martinez-Olguin, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 31, 2026** Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and WARDLAW and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Jeanette Burmeister (“Plaintiff”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of her action against Dr. Daniel Peterson, his corporation Daniel L. Peterson, M.D., Ltd., and his medical office Sierra Internal Medicine (collectively, “Defendants”). This dispute arises from Plaintiff’s participation in a clinical trial administered by Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with her pre- paid supply of her medication, Ampligen, and ejected her from the clinical trial in retaliation for her demands for the Ampligen and unused funds. Plaintiff also brings claims for Defendants’ alleged improper medical and billing practices. On appeal, Plaintiff challenges the district court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

We review de novo “[t]he timeliness of a notice of appeal,” see Feldman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 322 F.3d 660, 665 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted), and a district court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, see Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2015). “[T]he plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is appropriate.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004). “Where, as here, the motion is based on written materials rather than an evidentiary hearing, ‘the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts.’” Id. (quoting Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990)).

1. We hold that Plaintiff’s notice of appeal was timely. The district court did not enter final judgment in a separate document as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 58(a)(1). “When a judgment is not set forth on a separate document, then it is deemed entered for purposes of appeal 150 days from entry on the civil docket.” ABF Capital Corp. v. Osley, 414 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii)). “The deadline for notice of appeal then runs 30 days from entry of judgment.” Id. (citing Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A)). Because Plaintiff filed her notice of appeal within 180 days of the January 14, 2025, order, her appeal was timely.

Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. The plaintiff must satisfy the first two prongs before the burden shifts to the defendants on the third prong. Id. The district court determined that Plaintiff, a citizen of California, established that Defendants, citizens of Nevada, directed their conduct at California such that there was purposeful direction under prong one. At issue is the second prong: whether the claim “arises out of or relates to the [Defendants’] forum-related activities.” Id. “We have long understood that for an injury to arise out of a defendant’s forum contacts required ‘but for’ causation, in which ‘a direct nexus exists between [a defendant’s] contacts [with the forum state] and the cause of action.’”

Yamashita v. LG Chem, Ltd., 62 F.4th 496, 504 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting In re W.

States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 742 (9th Cir. 2013)). The terms “‘arise out of’ and ‘relate to’ are alternatives . . . a claim can relate to [forum] contacts, even absent causation, where, for example, ‘a company . . . serves a market for a product in the forum State and the product malfunctions there.’” Id.

(citing Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 362–63 (2021)). Under the “relate to” test, this Court has looked at whether: (1) “similar injuries will tend to be caused by” the defendant’s forum contacts; (2) “the defendant should have foreseen the risk that its contacts might cause injuries like that of the plaintiff”; and (3) there is a “close connection between [the defendant’s] contacts and injury.” Id. at 505–06. The focus of the minimum contacts analysis is on “the defendant’s conduct,” which “must form the necessary connection with the forum State that is the basis for its jurisdiction over him.” Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014).

Here, Plaintiff fails to establish that her injuries arise out of or relate to Defendants’ forum-related activities. While Plaintiff alleges certain contacts that Defendants had with California including years of infusions and follow-up care for Plaintiff, her seven claims against Defendants concern the “one-year supply of Ampligen” that “was to be stored and used at the Nevada clinic” and Plaintiff’s wrongful ejection “from the Nevada Ampligen study.” These claims are not connected to Defendants’ California contacts.

This case is therefore distinguishable from Cox v. Gritman Med. Ctr., 170 F.4th 724 (9th Cir. 2026), which Plaintiff relies on. In Cox, we determined that relatedness was met where the Idaho defendant doctor’s transmission of prescriptions to Washington pharmacies as part of the medical treatment was “at

AFFIRMED.