TROILO et al v. MICHNER et al

Filing 88

OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 3/14/2016. (tf, )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

[DOCKET NO. 83]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
DOLORES TROILO and KOREY
:
SLOAN, As Administrators
:
of the Estate of DAVEN
:
SLOAN and DOLORES TROILO
:
in her own right and KOREY :
SLOAN in his own right,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
RICHARD MICHNER, D.O.,
:
JOSEPH MILIO, D.O., MARY
:
HERRON, N.P., CATHY GERIA, :
A.P.N., COMPLETE CARE
:
HEALTH NETWORK d/b/a/
:
COMPLETE CARE WOMEN’S
:
CENTER, MICHNER & MILIA,
:
P.A., CAPE REGIONAL
:
MEDICAL CENTER,
:
:
Defendants.
:
___________________________:

HONORABLE RENÉE MARIE BUMB
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-2012
OPINION

APPEARANCES:
LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC
By: Jennifer L. Emmons, Esq.
801 N. Kings Highway
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034
Counsel for Plaintiffs
DRAKE LAW FIRM, P.C.
By: Steven Drake, Esq.
P.O. Box 345
29 North Shore Road
Absecon, New Jersey 08201
Counsel for Defendant Dr. Richard Michner

1

CRAMMER, BISHOP & O’BRIEN
By: David J. Bishop, Esq.
508 New Jersey Avenue, Suite B-3
Absecon, New Jersey 08201
Counsel for Defendant Cape Regional Medical Center

BUMB, United States District Judge:
Presently before the Court is Defendant Cape Regional
Medical Center’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order
and Opinion of February 9, 2016 denying Cape Regional’s Motion
to Limit Damages (Docket Entry #83).

The Court holds that Cape

Regional has, indeed, demonstrated good cause for filing the
Motion to Limit Damages after the dispositive motion deadline,
and therefore the instant Motion for Reconsideration will be
granted as to that issue.

However, the Court will reserve

decision on whether the New Jersey Charitable Immunities Act
(NJCIA) damages cap, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-8, applies to Cape Regional
until after Plaintiffs submit briefing on the question.

I.

Background and Procedural History
The underlying facts of this suit are recited in the

Court’s previous two summary judgment opinions found at docket
entries 63 and 65.

See Troilo v. Michner, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

154015 (D.N.J. Nov. 12, 2015); 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153687
(D.N.J. Nov. 13, 2015).

2

The opinion that is the subject of the instant motion for
reconsideration may be found at docket entry 80, and at Troilo
v. Michner, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15382 (D.N.J. Feb. 9, 2016).
Most relevant to the instant motion, the prior opinion explained
that Cape Regional had not demonstrated good cause for filing
its Motion to Limit Damages after the dispositive motion
deadline because it gave no reason at all:
Now, approximately four months after the United
States’ motion for summary judgment, five-and-a-half
months after the dispositive motion deadline, and nine
months after Cape Regional’s only motion for summary
judgment, Cape Regional has effectively moved for
summary judgment on the NJCIA issue without even
acknowledging that it has raised the issue very late.
The Court finds no good cause to excuse Cape Regional
from the dispositive motion deadline set in the
applicable scheduling order.
Troilo v. Michner, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15382 (D.N.J. Feb. 9,
2016)(emphasis added).

II.

Legal Standard
“The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct

manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.” Max's Seafood Café ex rel Lou-Ann Inc. v. Quinteros,
176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting Harsco Corp. v.
Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985).

III. Analysis

3

Reconsideration of the Court’s prior decision is warranted
because Cape Regional has now explained its reasons for the late
filing of its Motion to Limit Damages.

Whereas no explanation

was given before, Cape Regional now explains that it made a
reasoned decision to delay filing its Motion to Limit Damages,
which decision was based on several factors affecting various
aspects of this complex case.

Those factors include its own

outstanding motion for complete summary judgment that was still
pending at the time the dispositive motion deadline passed, the
fact that another summary judgment motion was expected to be
filed by Cape Regional’s co-defendant, and its uncertainty as to
whether, as a matter of law, its Motion to Limit Damages was,
indeed, a dispositive motion. 1
Without passing on whether Cape Regional’s reasons for
delay were ultimately correct, the Court nonetheless finds that
Cape Regional’s explanation “‘understandably account[s] for
failure of counsel to undertake to comply with the Scheduling
Order.’” Troilo, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15382 at *3 (quoting
Merrell v. Weeks Marine, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107170 at
*10 (D.N.J. July 31, 2013)).

Accordingly, the Court holds that

Cape Regional has demonstrated good cause for excusing it from

1

Moreover, nothing in the record before the Court suggests that
the late filing was due to gross neglect or bad faith.
4

the dispositive motion deadline.

The Motion for Reconsideration

will be granted to that extent.
Cape Regional’s Motion for Reconsideration goes further,
however, and seeks a ruling on the underlying merits issue-i.e., does the damages cap apply?

The Court will reserve

decision on that question because Plaintiffs have not yet
submitted briefing.

IV.

Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons, Cape Regional’s Motion for

Reconsideration will be granted as to the holding that Cape
Regional’s untimely filing of its Motion to Limit Damages will
not be excused.

The Court reserves decision on the

applicability of the damages cap, and will direct Plaintiffs to
file opposition to Cape Regional’s Motion to Limit Damages
within 21 days.

An appropriate order accompanies this opinion.

Date: March 14, 2016
s/ Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB, U.S.D.J.

5