PW et al v. United States of America et al
Filing
46
OPINION AND ORDER TAKING UNDER ADVISEMENT 43 Motion for Relief from Judgment. The Court indicates, pursuant to Seventh Circuit Rule 57, that it is inclined to grant Plaintiff's motion and modify the 09/09/2019 37 Opinion and Order granting summary judgment to reflect that judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant United States of America only. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 12/19/2019. (jat)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
PW, a minor, by DOMINQUE
WOODSON, his mother and guardian,
and DOMINQUE WOODSON,
individually,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CAUSE NO.: 2:17-CV-407-TLS-APR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
ANONYMOUS HOSPITAL,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Judgment [ECF No.
43].
The background facts are as follows. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint [ECF No. 1], raising
claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) against Defendant United States of America
and raising related state law claims under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act against
Defendant Anonymous Hospital. Defendant Anonymous Hospital filed an Unopposed Motion
for Initial Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint [ECF No. 19]. This motion
represented to the Court that under Indiana Code § 34-18-8-7, other than filing an initial
complaint, Plaintiffs were prohibited from pursuing claims against it until after a Medical
Review Panel issued an opinion on a pending proposed complaint. The Court granted this
unopposed motion [ECF No. 20], relieving Defendant Anonymous Hospital of its obligation to
respond until such time that a Medical Review Panel issues an opinion and Plaintiffs amend the
Complaint to identify Defendant Anonymous Hospital.
Subsequently, Defendant United States of America filed a Motion to Dismiss or
Alternatively Summary Judgment [ECF No. 21], pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) and 56. It is undisputed that Defendant Anonymous Hospital did not join Defendant
United States of America’s Motion [ECF No. 21]. After briefing on Defendant United States of
America’s motion was complete, the Court issued an Opinion and Order [ECF No. 37] granting
Defendant United States of America’s motion for summary judgment. The final sentence of the
Opinion provided: “The Clerk will enter judgment in favor of the Defendants and against the
Plaintiffs.” Opinion and Order at 23, ECF No. 37. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court’s Entry of
Judgment [ECF No. 38] entered judgment in favor of both Defendants and against Plaintiffs.
Following the entry of judgment, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal [ECF No. 39] of the
Court’s grant of summary judgment. After initial briefing on the question of jurisdiction, the
Court of Appeals issued an Order granting Plaintiffs leave to file a motion with this Court for
relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) or (b). Plaintiffs then filed
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Judgment [ECF No. 43] with this Court. Both Defendant
Anonymous Hospital [ECF No. 44] and Defendant United States [ECF No. 45] responded,
neither of whom either conceded or denied that the claims against Defendant Anonymous
Hospital should not have been dismissed.
ANALYSIS
The Court granted Defendant United States of America’s Motion for Summary Judgment
after concluding that the statute of limitations had run on Plaintiffs’ FTCA claims against
Defendant United States of America and that no exception to the statute of limitations applied.
Opinion and Order at 12–22. The analysis section of the Opinion did not consider the claims
against Anonymous Hospital and repeatedly referred to the singular “Defendant’s” motion. Id. at
2
1, 2, 7, 22. After carefully reviewing its previous Opinion, the Court determines that it
inadvertently used the plural “Defendants” within the “CONCLUSION” section of the Opinion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) allows a court to modify a final judgment on
motion because of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” But see Shuffle Tech
Int’l, LLC v. Wolff Gaming, Inc., 757 F.3d 708, 710 (7th Cir. 2014) (noting that, “if the flaw lies
in the translation of the original meaning to the judgment, then Rule 60(a) allows a correction;
[but] if the judgment captures the original meaning but is infected by error, then the parties must
seek another source of authority to correct the mistake”) (quoting United States v. Griffin, 782
F.2d 1393, 1396–97 (7th Cir. 1986)). Thus, Rule 60(b)(1) provides authority for this Court to
potentially modify the final judgment in this matter as it relates to Defendant Anonymous
Hospital.
Because of the pending appeal, this Court currently lacks jurisdiction to modify the final
judgment in this matter. However, Seventh Circuit Rule 57 states that, “A party who during the
pendency of an appeal has filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) or 60(b), . . . should request
the district court to indicate whether it is inclined to grant the motion. If the district court so
indicates, this court will remand the case for the purpose of modifying the judgment.”
Therefore, the Court TAKES UNDER ADVISEMENT Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from
Judgment [ECF No. 43], and indicates, pursuant to Seventh Circuit Rule 57, that it is inclined to
grant Plaintiff’s motion and modify the September 9, 2019 Opinion and Order granting summary
judgment [ECF No. 37] to reflect that judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant United
States of America only.
SO ORDERED on December 19, 2019.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
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?