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