DAIS et al v. PATERSON COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER et al

Filing 17

LETTER OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 4/18/11. (gh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. FEDERAL BLDG. & U.S. COURTHOUSE
50 WALNUT STREET, P.O. BOX 419
NEWARK, NJ 07101-0419
[phone]

WILLIAM J. MARTINI
JUDGE

LETTER OPINION

April 18, 2011
Robert G. Hicks
Javerbaum, Wurgaft, Hicks, Kahn, Wikstrom & Sinnis
959 South Springfield Avenue
Springfield, NJ 07081
(Attorney for Plaintiffs)
Paul J. Fishman
Susan Handler-Menahem
Office of the U.S. Attorney
970 Broad Street, Suite 700
Newark, NJ 07102
(Attorney for Defendants)

Re:

Dais, et al. v. Paterson Community Health Center, et al.
Civ No. 10-04099 (WJM-MF)

Dear Counsel:
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant United States’ motion to alter or
amend the Court’s October 21, 2010 Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e). There was no oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). After careful consideration of
the parties’ submissions, the Court agrees with Defendant that it erred in finding equitable
tolling at this time. Accordingly, the Defendant’s motion is GRANTED and the Court’s
October 21, 2010 Order is VACATED IN PART.
I.

BACKGROUND

On June 21, 2007, Plaintiffs, Markeith Dais and Michelle Dais-Harvey, filed this
medical malpractice action in the Superior Court of New Jersey against the Paterson
Community Health Center (“PCHC”), Dr. Gurmit Chilana and Dr. Vincent Short, among
others. Plaintiff Michelle Dais-Harvey contends that she was deprived of appropriate
medical treatment during her pregnancy and that as a result, her child was born with
multiple disabilities on or about July 12, 1994. (Compl. ¶ 7.) Based upon the
Certification by the United States Attorney’s designee that PCHC was acting within the
scope of federal employment, the case was removed to this Court and the United States
was substituted as the party-defendant in place of PCHC on August 10, 2010. (Docket
Entry Nos. 1, 2.)
The United States moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for failure
to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit as required under the Federal Tort
Claims Act (“FTCA”). See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(c). Plaintiffs conceded that no
administrative claim had been filed and did not oppose on that basis. (Pls.’ Opp. Br.,
Docket Entry No. 15, at 2.) Additionally, Plaintiffs filed a Cross-Motion arguing that any
dismissal should be without prejudice, and that the doctrine of equitable tolling should
permit Plaintiffs to file their Notice of Claim with the Department of Health and Human
Services (“HHS”) nunc pro tunc.1 (Docket Entry No. 7.) On October 21, 2010, the Court
issued a Letter Opinion granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and
finding that since Plaintiffs failed to first present the claim to HHS, the Court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction. (Letter Op. at 4.) In determining that dismissal should be
without prejudice, the Court further held that the FTCA statute of limitation is equitably
tolled under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(5)(A)-(B). (Letter Op. at 5-6.) Defendant United States
now moves to vacate the portion of the Court’s October 21, 2010 Order permitting the
filing of an administrative claim and the finding that equitable tolling permits the filing of
the notice of claim nunc pro tunc.
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review

1

Plaintiffs also moved to remand the action against Dr. Chilana, which the Court granted.
(Oct. 18 Letter Op. at 7.) That portion of the Court’s ruling is not challenged in the present
motion.
2

While the United States describes its motion as a motion to alter or amend a
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), in this district Local Civil Rule
7.1(i) creates a specific procedure by which a party may request that the Court take a
second look at any decision “upon a showing that dispositive factual matters or
controlling decisions of law were overlooked by the court in reaching its prior decision.”
See generally Dunn v. Reed Group, Civ. No. 08-1632, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2438
(D.N.J. Jan. 13, 2010) (citing treatise). Thus, Local Civil Rule 7.1(i), not Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e), governs motions for reconsideration filed in the District of New
Jersey. Byrne v. Calastro, Civ No. 05-68, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64054 (D.N.J. Aug. 28,
2006). A motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) may be granted only
if: (1) there has been an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) evidence not
available when the Court issued the subject order has become available; or (3) it is
necessary to correct a clear error of law or fact to prevent manifest injustice. Max’s
Seafood Café by Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing
North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)).
Relief by way of a motion for reconsideration is considered an “extraordinary
remedy,” to be granted only sparingly. NL Indus. Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935
F. Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1999). A motion for reconsideration should not be treated as
an appeal of a prior decision. See Morris v. Siemens Components, Inc., 938 F. Supp. 277,
278 (D.N.J. 1996) (“A party’s mere disagreement with a decision of the district court
should be raised in the ordinary appellate process and is inappropriate on a motion for
reargument.” (citing Bermingham v. Sony Corp., 820 F. Supp. 834, 859 n. 8 (D.N.J.
1992), aff’d, 37 F. 3d 1485 (3d Cir. 1994))). It is improper for the moving party to “ask
the court to rethink what it ha[s] already thought through-rightly or wrongly.” Oritani
Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Fid. & Deposit Co., 744 F. Supp. 1311, 1314 (D.N.J. 1990).
B.

Whether this Court had Jurisdiction to Find Equitable Tolling

Defendant United States urges the Court to reconsider its decision to address the
equitable tolling issue after holding that, pursuant to the FTCA, it lacked jurisdiction over
the matter. Specifically, Defendant alleges that (1) once the Court found it lacked subject
matter jurisdiction, the inquiry should have ended there, and (2) the issue of equitable
tolling was not yet ripe for adjudication.

3

Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and courts bear an obligation to
assure that jurisdiction is proper. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S.
83, 94-95, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 1012 (1998); Kokonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S.
375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1944); United States v. Shaw, 309 U.S. 495, 500-01 (1940).
Additionally, the jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to actual cases and controversies.
Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 37 (1976). In this
case, in determining whether to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice, the Court
mistakenly went beyond these jurisdictional boundaries. Since Plaintiffs’ complaint was
dismissed due to Plaintiffs’ failure to file an administrative claim prior to filing suit, the
issue of whether such an administrative claim would be timely should Plaintiffs now
choose to file one is not yet at issue. Should Plaintiffs decide to file an administrative
claim and then decide to file suit, and should the United States then contest the timing of
such a claim, only then will the Court properly address the timeliness of the Plaintiffs’
administrative claim. The Court overlooked this distinction and erred in addressing the
equitable tolling issue while determining that the complaint should be dismissed without
prejudice. Instead, the Court’s inquiry should have ended once the decision to dismiss
without prejudice had been reached. Therefore, any findings made in the October 21,
2010 Letter Opinion, beyond the finding that Plaintiffs’ complaint should be dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies, should be disregarded. Additionally, the portions of the October 21, 2010
Order permitting Plaintiffs to file an administrative claim with HHS within 60 days and
permitting Plaintiffs to file their notice of claim nunc pro tunc are vacated.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the motion for reconsideration filed by Defendant, the
United States, is GRANTED. An Order follows this Letter Opinion.

s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

4