GIBSON v. TJX Companies, Inc. et al
Filing
44
ORDER granting 38 Motion to Set Aside Judgment, which the Court construes as a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 03/23/2017. (CCL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
STEPHANIE GIBSON,
*
Plaintiff,
*
vs.
*
TJX COMPANIES, INC., et al.,
*
Defendants.
CASE NO. 4:16-cv-209 (CDL)
*
O R D E R
The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff Stephanie Gibson’s
negligence
claims
against
Defendant
Universal
Vending
Management, LLC because those claims were untimely.
Feb. 2,
2017 Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 37.
In a footnote,
the Court stated that to the extent Gibson attempted to assert a
claim against Universal Vending on behalf of the United States
under the Medical Care Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2651, “those
claims fail because the Medical Care Recovery Act on its face
only provides a right of recovery for the United States and
Gibson does not allege that she has been authorized to bring any
claims under the statute on behalf of the United States.”
at 4 n.1.
Id.
In other words, the Court concluded that Gibson did
not adequately allege that she had standing to pursue claims
against Universal Vending under the Medical Care Recovery Act
and dismissed the claim on that ground, without prejudice.
Gibson
negligence
does
not
claims
challenge
against
the
Court’s
Universal
dismissal
Vending.
But
of
she
her
does
assert that after the Court issued the order dismissing her
claims against Universal Vending, she was given authority to
prosecute her Medical Care Recovery Act claims on behalf of the
United States.
Gibson seeks leave to file a second amended
complaint to add an allegation that she now has express consent
from the United States to pursue a Medical Care Recovery Act
claim against Universal Vending on behalf of the United States.
The
Gibson
Court
should
ordered
not
be
Universal
Vending
permitted
to
file
to
a
show
cause
second
why
amended
complaint to assert a Medical Care Recovery Act claim against
Universal Vending.
In its response brief, Universal Vending
objected to Gibson’s proposed amended complaint to the extent it
attempts to resurrect her negligence claims against Universal
Vending
that
were
previously
dismissed
as
untimely,
but
Universal Vending stated that it did not object to an amendment
that
would
“only
seek
reimbursement
of
the
Tricare
lien.”
Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. to Am. Compl. 3, ECF No. 41.
The
Court therefore finds that Gibson should be permitted to amend
her
complaint
to
assert
against Universal Vending.
a
Medical
Care
Recovery
Act
claim
She shall not, however, be permitted
to reassert the dismissed negligence claims against Universal
Vending.
2
Gibson shall file her second amended complaint within seven
days of today’s order.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of March, 2017.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
3
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?