Diversicare Leasing Corporation et al v. Hall
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER, denying 15 MOTION for relief of re 14 Memorandum Opinion & Order, Staying Case, Terminate Motions and granting. 17 MOTION for Leave to File by Annette Hall Supplemental Authority filed by Annette Hall,. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 8/8/16.(SMT)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION
ASHLAND
Civil Action No. 15-29-HRW
DIVERSICARE LEASING CORP. d/b/a
WURTLAND NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER;
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC.;
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.;
and DIVERSICARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, CO,
v.
PLAINTIFFS,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ANNETTE HALL,
Executor of the Estate of ALLIENE MENSHOUSE,
DEFENDANT.
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Relief [Docket No. 15] and
Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority [Docket No. 17].
On April 17, 2015, Defendant filed in the Circuit Court of Greenup County, Kentucky,
Case No. 15-CI-00158, a negligence, medical negligence, corporate negligence, violation of long
term care resident's rights, and wrongful death action against Diversicare Leasing Corp. d/b/a
Wurtland Nursing and Rehabilitation Center; Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. f/k/a
Advocat, Inc.; Diversicare Management Services, Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc.; Cindy
Salyers, in her capacity as Administrator of Wurtland Nursing and Rehabilitation Center; Nathan
Carder, in his capacity as Administrator of Wurtland Nursing and Rehabilitation Center; Sarah
Willis, in her capacity as Administrator of Wurtland Nursing and Rehabilitation Center; and John
Does 1through5. On May 16, 2015, Diversicare Leasing Corp. d/b/a Wurtland Nursing &
Rehabilitation
Center; Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc.; Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc.; and Diversicare
Management Services Co., filed a Complaint in the instant matter asserting breach of contract
and seeking to enforce, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitration agreement
purportedly signed by Michelle Thompson. This Court compelled arbitration and enjoined
Defendant from proceeding in the underlying Greenup County Circuit Comi case, Case No. l 5CI-00158, in an Order dated November 24, 2015.
Defendant asks this Court to reconsider its order.
The standards for reconsideration are necessarily high. There are only three grounds for a
district court to amend its judgment: (I) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling
laws; (2) to account for new evidence not available previously; and (3) to correct a clear error of
law or to prevent manifest injustice. Berridge v. Heiser, 993 F. Supp. 1136, 1146-47 (S.D. Ohio
1997).
This Court finds that none of these reasons are presented by Defendant. She does not
offer any new fact on which the Court may find reconsideration appropriate. Nor is there
manifest injustice which must be corrected in this record.
As for the supplemental authority provided by Defendant, it does not establish any new
law and has no bearing on this case. Despite Defendant's attempt to compare the holding in
Richmond Health Facilities v. Nichols, 811 F.3d 192 (6th Cir. 2016) to the issues in the present case,
the Sixth Circuit in Nichols never addressed the issue of whether an agent was authorized to enter
into an arbitration agreement on behalf of a principal. Indeed, the agreement in that case was signed
by the decedent rather than an agent. Here, in contrast to Nichols, a wrongful death beneficiary,
Michelle Thompson, did , in fact, sign the arbitration agreement and "was thus a party to it." The
2
Arbitration Agreement clearly states that "[t]he Facility and the Resident and/or Resident's
Authorized Representative understand and agree that any legal dispute, controversy, demand, or
claim that arises out of or relates to the Resident Admission Agreement or is in any way connected to
the Resident's stay at the Facility ... shall be resolved exclusively by binding Arbitration."
Further, the Admission Agreement, also signed by Thompson, stated that "the facility and
the resident or the resident's authorized representative ... wish to agree now, in advance, to submit
any disputes that may arise between the parties ... to binding arbitration instead of court litigation."
Therefore, Thompson, a wrongful death beneficiary, personally entered into an agreement to
arbitrate future wrongful death claims arising out of Ms. Menshouse' s residency. As such, the
holding in Nichols has no bearing on this case. Moreover, Nichols does not establish any new
substantive law, and, therefore, does not provide grounds for reconsideration.
A Rule 59 motion is not an opportunity to reargue a case. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of
Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 1998 WL 288685 (6th Cir. June 5, 1998) (citing
FDIC v. World Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992)). This is insufficient for this Court to
disturb its original ruling.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Relief [Docket
No. 15] be OVERRULED and Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority
[Docket No. 17] be SUSTAINED.
This
l{ ~ay of August, 2016.
Signed By:
· '"'•t.
tllnrv R. Wilhoit, Jr.
United Statee Olatrlct Judge
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?