Clay v. Emmi et al
Filing
50
ORDER Granting 45 Motion to Lift Stay and Certify the Action for Appeal. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOSHUA CLAY,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO: 13-11555
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
v.
MICHAEL EMMI, Hazel Park Police Officer;
RICHARD STORY, Hazel Park Firefighter/Medic;
MICHAEL SHARROW, Hazel Park Firefighter/Medic;
PAUL VANDENADELLE, Security Personnel at
St. John Oakland Hospital; KEVIN MITCHELL,
Security Personnel at St. John Oakland Hospital; and
ST. JOHN PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER GRANTING ST. JOHN PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM’S
MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND TO CERTIFY ORDER FOR
INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
I.
Introduction
Before the Court is Defendant St. John Providence Health System’s (“St. John”)
Motion to Lift the Stay and Certify the Action for Appeal. St John also requests an order
reinstating the stay of the action until the Court of Appeals issues a decision. St. John’s
Motion is GRANTED.
II.
Discussion
This case involves an incident at St. John Oakland Hospital. Plaintiff Joshua
Clay (“Clay”) was taken there by ambulance because his case worker believed he was
in danger of committing suicide. Clay attempted to leave the hospital and alleges
1
defendants used unlawful force to restrain him.
On September 30, 2014, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying
in part St. John’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Court determined Clay’s
negligence claim against two St. John security guards was based on an intentional
offensive touching, and that his proper cause of action is for battery, not negligence.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed Count II (labeled “negligence” but pleading “negligent
battery,” not a cause of action in Michigan) against the two St. John security guards,
and allowed the case to go forward against St. John on a respondeat superior liability
theory and independent negligence claims. St. John filed a Motion for Reconsideration;
it was denied.
St. John asks this Court to lift the stay under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 and enter an order
under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b) certifying the matter for interlocutory appeal. Clay objects; he
says (1) St. John provides no basis for lifting the stay; and (2) St. John failed to file its
Motion within a reasonable time.
The Court finds that St. John provided a basis for lifting the stay and also filed its
motion within a reasonable time.
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), the Court may relieve a party from an order for “any
. . . reason that justifies relief.” Other than that the motion be filed “within a reasonable
time,” there is no specific time restriction for motions brought under Rule 60(b)(6).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1)
The Court finds St.John’s delay of three months is reasonable and that Rule
60(b)(6) allows for such motions beyond a year.
A Court may certify a non-final decision for interlocutory appeal when the
2
following factors are met: (1) the order involves a controlling question of law; (2) for
which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion respecting the correctness of
the decision; and (3) for which an immediate appeal would materially advance the
ultimate termination of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. §1292(b); In re City of Memphis, 293
F.3d 345, 350 (6th Cir. 2002).
All three criteria are met. A legal issue is controlling if it materially affects the
outcome of the case. In re City of Memphis, 293 F.345 at 351. The controlling legal
question here is this: If the Court determines that Plaintiff failed to properly plead a claim
for negligence against the employee, is an employer entitled to Judgment on the
Pleadings for: (1) respondeat superior liability; and (2) various claims of negligence? It
is a controlling question of law because a determination could materially affect the
outcome of the case.
Second, although the Court stands by its opinion and believes it reached the
correct result, it recognizes that there is room for disagreement. The Court was not
aware of any precedent, and the parties provided none, which addressed the precise
issue before it.
Finally, an immediate appeal could materially advance the ultimate termination of
the litigation. If St. John prevails on appeal, it could prevail on one or more of the
remaining claims before this Court. There are other defendants in the case. Resolution
of this appeal will not end the case, but it could reduce and simplify the duration of the
proceedings.
3
III.
Certification of Appeal
Regarding the Court’s September 30, 2014 Order, the Court certifies that:
1.
2.
There is a substantial ground for difference of opinion on that question;
and,
3.
IV.
The Order involves a controlling question of law: - If the Court determines
that Plaintiff failed to properly plead a claim for negligence against the
employee, is an employer entitled to Judgment on the Pleadings for: (1)
respondeat superior liability; and (2) various claims of negligence?
An immediate appeal from the Order may materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation.
Conclusion
Defendant St. John’s Motion is GRANTED.
IT IS ORDERED.
/s/ Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: May 21, 2015
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on
May 21, 2015.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk
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?