Smith v. Hoskyns
Filing
41
ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment(Doc. 33) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Disposition Re Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 40) is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 5/17/12.(LAD)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Robert N. Hoskyns D.M.D., d/b/a Bella)
)
Dontia Dental Renewal,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
Gwendolyn Smith,
No. CV-10-531-PHX-GMS
ORDER
15
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33)
16
and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition Re Defendants’ Motion for Summary
17
Judgment (Doc. 40). For the reasons discussed below, the Motion for Summary Judgment
18
is granted and the Motion for Summary Disposition is denied as moot.
BACKGROUND
19
20
On February 6, 2007, Plaintiff Gwendolyn Smith was examined by Defendant Dr.
21
Robert Hoskyns in relation to her request for dental treatment. Defendant proposed a
22
treatment plan for her with a cost of around $70,000. Plaintiff arranged for this treatment to
23
be paid for through a loan arranged by her law school’s financial aid office. In March 2007,
24
however, after a series of unpleasant interactions with Plaintiff, Defendant dismissed Plaintiff
25
as a patient. He never performed any of the proposed treatment or received any funds from
26
Plaintiff or from her law school.
27
Three years later, on March 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this action,
28
bringing seven claims against Dr. Hoskyns. She has characterized six of these claims as
1
breach of contract claims. (Doc. 15 at 3). Her seventh claim is for medical malpractice.
2
On October 25, 2010, Defendant filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. During the
3
bankruptcy proceedings, Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims against Defendant were
4
discharged. (Doc. 31, Ex. 1 at 4).
5
On January 4, 2012, Defendant moved for summary judgment in this Court on
6
Plaintiff’s remaining, medical malpractice claim. (Doc. 33). Although the Court has warned
7
Plaintiff that her failure to respond to Defendant’s motion “may be deemed consent to the .
8
. . granting of the motion,” Plaintiff has nonetheless failed to respond to Defendant’s motion.
9
(Doc. 37).
10
DISCUSSION
11
Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable
12
to the nonmoving party, demonstrates “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
13
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).
14
Given that the Bankruptcy Court’s has already discharged Plaintiff’s breach of
15
contract claims, the only claim which remains to be decided is Plaintiff’s claim for medical
16
malpractice. In the state of Arizona there is a two-year statute of limitations for medical
17
malpractice claims. A.R.S. § 12-542(1). Plaintiff brought her claim in March 2010 – three
18
years after Defendant’s alleged medical malpractice. (See Doc. 1). Because Plaintiff’s claim
19
was not filed within the limitations period, Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
20
law.
21
22
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 33) is GRANTED.
23
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition
24
Re Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 40) is denied as moot. The Clerk of
25
Court is directed to terminate this action.
26
DATED this 17th day of May, 2012.
27
28
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?