ENOBAKHARE et al v. ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL et al

Filing 25

OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 2/1/2017. (mps)

I

RECEIVBD
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

FEB 0 1 2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
I

AT 8:30
WILLIAM T. WALSH
CLER~<

I

HELEN ENOBAKHARE and WILLIAM
ENOBAKHARE,
Plaintiffs,

Civ. No. 16-1457

v.

OPJION

ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON UNIVERSITY
HOSPITAL, JOHN DOES 1-10
(FICTITIOUS NAMES REPRESENTING
UNKNOWN INDIVIDUALS), JANE DOES
1-10 FICTICIOUS NAMES
REPRESENTING UNKNOWN
INDIVIDUALS), ABC CORPORATION
(FICTITIOUS NAMES REPRESENTING
UNKNOWN ENTITIES), THE YELLOW
CAB COMPANY AND ADAM TYUS,
Defendants.
~--

·..:.

·. ..:

-

THOMPSON, U.S.aJ: ·

. ... - ... I .

INTRODUCTION
-

.

-.

.

I

.

I

This matter has come before the Court on multiple motions~ Defendant Robert Wood
~ ..

. '.:.o
-

-

-

-

i

- .
•

j

I

I

Johnson University Hospital ("Defendant") filed a moron to dismiss. l(ECF No. 14) ("First

Mo~on to ~i~.ss"). While that motion was p~ding rfo~ this Co,, .Defendant filed another
motion to dtsrmss. (ECF No. 21) ("Second Motion to Dismiss"). Plaintiffs Helen Enobakhare
and William Enobakhare ("Plaintiffs") oppose both mltions. (ECF NJs. 18, 22). the Court has
decided the
••pursuant to

motio~ ba11!}(J9n the written submi~siqns ~f the parties an~ without oral argument

Lo~aLCi~l l{~e·7~.l(b): For the reasons 1tated herein, Pl~tiffs' Complaint will be

dismissed without pfejudiCe and Plaintiffs will be gi-Jed leave to file;an amended Complaint on
or before February 17, 2017. Defendant's motions to 1smiss will be denied without prejudice.
1

M
I
I

If Plaintiffs properly file an amended complaint, Defendant may re-submit its motions to
dismiss.

!

I

I

BACKGROUND
.

This case is a wrongful death action brought b, Helen Enobkahare and William

Enobakhare regarding the passing of their mother Patience Enobakhare. Plaintiffs make the
following allegations.
Patience Enobakhare was originally admitted to Robert Wood Johnson University
Hospital for hyperthyroidism. from December 10, 2011

~o Dec~ber

15, 2014. (Fourth Am.

Compl. if 1, ECF No. 6). Patience Enobakhare was agam admitted to Robert Wood Johnson
. .

.

.

.

-

-

!

.

.

University Hospital in . January 2014, February 2014, ~d from March 5, 2014 to March 9, 2014.
I
I

. . (Id.,, 1, 4). Throughout.this timeperiod, Patience Enobakhare had chfollic swollen legs. (Id.·,
3). On March 5, 2014, Patience Enobakhare was admitted to Robert Wood Johnson University
I

.

.

.

I

Hospital to receive anx-ray and blood work on the ad"Vrice of her primary care p~ysician~. (Id. _ , __ -: .
I

-

. ·.

- . . . . ·..

.

i

.

'

-

ot

.

4). Patience Enobakhare was discharged on March 9, 2014, but no x-ray blood work.was · · ·_
>·;_._··_:zg;;s1;~~-~(~ ~- > -" · _
··
I
·
· ·. · - ·· · :,~c- ' . ;, ·· ·
- ·. : .
performed, aJ1d she was not provided any explanation for her chronic S;\Vollen legs. (Id._, 4). ·
.
. <E)< .~:>-- ·~·>;_=-- .
.
.
.:.
Patience Enobakhare's legswere consistently swollen from DecemberJQ,·2Ql3,_to March..9,
·-~

- :.:.

-~·:

. ·-.:·

II

.

.

•
..

I

·.: :;.;

-

: --

2014, but her swoHert- legs were never examined, dia~osed or treated.: (Id.

.

. .

~ 5).

..

The· Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital staff knew or should have known that
there was a medical res.son for her chronic swollen le,, had an obligation to examine her .
swollen legs, and that the failure to diagnose or treat her for the cause of her chronic swollen legs

..

:

-

-·

. .

~~uld:restilt hi serious h~ or.death.

I

-

(Id. ,, 7, 8). Tlie staff at Robert Wood Johnson

-·

° ._-_

UniverSitY"ff~s~it:IT shOllid have realized tliat P~tience ~nobakhare' s cirnlciC swoi1enlegs were
·. not related ~o h~ilYPerth)'Toidism. (Id. ~ 13). If the stf at Robert Wood Johnson University
. · Hospital had diagnosed and treated her swollen legs, s Ie would not have died. (Id. ~ 9). On
2

!

March 14, 2014, Patience Enobakhare passed away of~eart failure. (14.
because her chronic swollen legs were never treated.

(fd. if 15, 17).

if 34).

She passed away

Also, after Patience

Enobakhare passed, an autopsy was performed and it jas determined that she had passed due to
her hyperthyroidism. (Id.

if 19).

Additionally, on March 14, 2014, Patience Enobakhare took a taxicab to her home from
the local shopping mall. Her cab driver, Adam Tyus, lho was working for Defendant Yellow
Cab Company, did not take the "regular" road used by cab drivers to drive between Patience
Enobakhare' s neighborhood and the local shopping ni~ll. (Id.
to become anxious, confused and to hyperventilate
uncomfortable roadway in her town." (Id.
refuSed. (Id.

--

if 33).

.- - --

' b1

if 36).

In so doing, he caused her

taking her to an unfamiliar, dark, and

She mad told the cab driver to stop, but he

- -

I-. - -.. --

- . . --

-.

- -

if 50). · ShebCcaine si:> nervoUs that shejTped out ofthe taxicab and into a

stranger's car who had the police call an ambulance.

({d. if 40).

Patience Enobakhare passed

I

. - "'· ,_.1,, .•_,~, :_..

· away that day.

·On August 9, 2016, Defendant filed an answer
_: -.. - --

fo.~laintiffs' Complaint. (ECF No. 8).

-..
... r- -_,,
~:rt-

~-

' -

.-

-~

--

. . -. .
~

~

-

--

· .The Clerk of Court previously entered default against IDefeildants Yellow Cab Gornpany and
·- ..·.
.· :· .. -'_,·:. . -< ~/ 1~-~:•ii: ..
~::~
Adam Tyus~ (See ECF No. 12). Defend.antthen-fil¢,d)fs:tn:otioris todiSriliss.- Therefore;·· ·

< --: ' ·- . .

,_:. : . - ..

. .· :: :<'l··. _. _·.. . .:...· .·.·

Defendant's two motions to dismiss are presently before the Court· .-

·· ·

:...

~-

·

I-···-- .

DISCUSSION - · :_: _;, - --

I.

Jurisdiction
Before considering the merits ofDefendantJsmotions to dismiss, the Court must consider

·..· · • whether it has jurisdiction over this case. In order to l e subjeef

riiatt~j~sgction~~ ~~ basis ..

of diversity of the parties, plaintiffs must affirmativeiy pleag the-citizenship. of ail~ parties. .·Lewis

v. United Air Lines, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d 434; 442 (D.N.J: 2000). Faililre to properly and
completely allege a basis for diversity jurisdiction dJveS a
3

fed~ court ofjuriSdiction.

Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. &

sJ.

Co., 177 F.3d 210, 222 n.13 (3d Cir.

1999). Consistent with our "independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it," we review the complaint. Hertz Corp. v.

Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010). In a complaint

allegin~

diversity of citizenship as the basis for

I

federal jurisdiction, the burden is on the plaintiff to affirmatively identify the citizenship of each
party so that ''the existence of complete diversity can

~e confirmed." Chemical Leaman, 177
I

F.3d at 222 n.13 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(l)). Alleg~tions as to a party's "residency," as
opposed to "citizenship" or "domicile," are "jurisdictidnally inadequate in [a] diversity of
citizenship case." McNair v. Synapse Group Inc., 672 IF.3d 213, 219 n.4 (3d Cir. 2012)
Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that Defendants Jobert Wood Johnson University Hospital,
. ·.. Yellow Cab Companyiind Adam Tyus all were residJts ofoi- businesSes in New Jersey.
I

(Fourth Am. Compl. at,, 26, 30, 31, ECF No. 6). Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that Plaintiff
William Enobakhare was at all times relevant a residjt of New York, and that Plaintiff Helen
-

EnobakJiar~ )'.'*~

-

I

.

-

-

a! all-tiDJ.~~-r~lev~~r-a'residen.t. o_f the-IDisfrictofColumbia~ . (Fourth Arri.. CompL
.,:'.:~·~-:·,L2 : · ;.: : .; .· .-_ . - :-: ..
-·:-:f .··... - ~- -

.··- >·::. ;. <:> -

i

c.-

.

. ·· ..

-

-

.

.. .

.

·. ~, 28, 29,-ECF No~ 6).-,,Pfaintiffs! Complaint~llegestliaqhe deceased, Patience Et~obakhare,
-~-

--·

-

Was at ·all tmtes~televanfai~t'~Si<:l~nf·ofthe: State· of New Jersey,

County ~f Middlesex.

{Follrlh

I

<

Am. Compl., 27,ECF-No. 6)>- Plaintiffs·c~t~fu~.N~\V Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. §_59_:1~1

et seq. a~ the basis for

bringing its claims. None of the defendants before this Court are public entities, and as a result,
it appears that the. New Jersey Torr Claims Act would lot govern here artd Plaintiffs have failed
· to cite the relevant New Jersef

s~tuie g()~~riiiii~;~&l@IIlS;~J~th~t~ding this potelltia1 :

~-. ~:
·>1;:_,.·-·.c·:.).·:-~{, ··:1:··-. ' ~ ·.. ~~~ -·
, .
deficiency, Plaintiffs'· Complaint is· titled,. ·'f.Ainended Cfomplaint for Wrongful D~ath" and it .

- .

. . ' . · :_ -

:·.

contains a single cause of action for wrongful death

.

. . ..

·. ·

an~ ne~igence. (Fourth Am. Comp!. atl-2,

.· I

ECF No. 6). Therefore, it appears-that New Jersey's Wrongful DeathAct, codified at N.J.S.A. §

4

2A:31-l et seq., which establishes a cauSe ofaction fo1 wrongful death, under certain
circumstances, applies to Plaintiffs' claims. 1 The statu~e provides that only certain individuals
may bring such an action: "Every action commenced uhder this Chapter shall be brought in the
name of an administrator ad prosequendum of the decJcient for whose death damages are sought,
except where decedent died testate and his will is problted, in which event the executor named in
the will and qualifying, or the administrator with the

~II annexed, as the case may be, shall

bring the action." N.J.S.A. § 2A:31-2.
Plaintiffs' Complaint is deficient. Plaintiffs only allege "residency'' of multiple parties as
I

,

opposed to the parties' "citizenship" or "domicile." (Fpurth Am. Compl. ~~ 2~31, ECF No. 6).
I

Additionally, Plaintiffs bring the instant wrongful death action in their individual capacities,
.

..

- . :

--- .

...

.

. .. . . . . . .

. ..

.

·-

.

I

. . : .- .... . . . .

.

_-

..

. .

-

·· · rather than as administrators adprosequendum of the tedent as required by the Wrongful
Death Statute. If Plaintiffs-had properly brought the Complaint as required by the Wrongful

·.•

i:·~·~~,Deatli•.st~te,the.Plaiiiti~to~?.
· <,,~;·_,_,c.;; . :Feel~ R~ C1v~ :e~

. . i::;c:~;;;;::~.--~:,:_:: .·<.

..

be deemed. citiZenslof

tlie

s~e

state as the decedent. See

1332(c)(2) (prov1dmg that "the legal representative of the. estate of a decedent

'

.

·. .

. . : .. ... .

.. :•

'="

c

.

..

.

.:

. .

~··...

. -: >

•.

.

. .

.

.

·._ .•. ·:~-:=-shall be deem.edto be a:~citizen·only of the same State-~ the decedent.'''). · Based on the·

..

•

-

r

·,

.

-

:{.~;;;i.::__,,_~;':'·.. allegations'contained-in theJJomplaint,

·

.t

it appears that diversity.jJ,lrisdiction would then be

destroyed because the Plaintiffs ·would be deemed citijens .Of the state of New Jersey, the same
state as all of the named defendants~
Plaintiffs claim in their briefs that the deceased may have been' a citizen of Nigeria, and
· . as a· result, diversity jurisdietion_niay sti~l exist even if PlaiI1tiffs.had brought this suit as legal
-

-

···:. ···• -··:~---. --

•

.

-

-

-

<

.........

~--< /:~·~~. >::~~--

.

:':'·· .·.~-~.'.·_.-::_··:.,·:..-:;; - : ,__ ~ :.·
.

~;

-

~··

. 1·rhe_statutereads:>'When the qe~ih ofaper~o1t is ~~~seclby~·~origfu(act~-negle~t otdefauit, such·a~ would; if
. -death had ilot'ensued,haveentitled the-person injilred _to-maintaitlair~ctfon for da~ges resulting
the mjury,
the person who would have been liablt{ iri damages for the injury if death iiad not ensued shall be liable in an action
·~.for damages, notwithstanding thedeatlrofthe person injured and-although;the death was caused under
circumstances amounting in law to a crime."

.

from

0

N.J.S.A. § 2A;31-1. .

5

.

I

!

representatives of the decedent. (ECF No. 22 at 10). However, these claims in Plaintiffs' briefs
directly contradict the allegations in Plaintiffs' Compl1nt, where Plaintiffs' allege that the
decedent was at all times relevant a resident of the Stje of New Jerse;, and the purported
foreign citizenship of the decedent is not mentioned at lall. (See Fourth Am. Compl., ECF No. 6).
Moreover, no documents relating to the decedent's

p~orted Nigerian citizenship were attached
I

to the Complaint. Therefore, based on the face of the <Complaint, the Court cannot determine
that it has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this mattJ. This runs afoul of the express language

I

.

of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a}, which requires a "short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's ·
I

jurisdiction." Plaintiffs will be granted leave to file an/ amended Complaint. If Plaintiffs do not
cure the pleading deficiencies discussed herein, Plaintia-s' Complaint may be dismissed with
.'prejudice~.

II.

.

Defendant's Motions. to Dismiss·
-

-

.

..

-

'

. DefendanCs·motions t~qisO:iiss will be denied rthout preju.dif pending any attempt by

.1 ··.

· · .· ··•Plaintiffs to file an amendedcomplaint.

.
>

..

For the foregoing

Defendant's motion to

·-CONCLUSION>--- ·.

reaso~, Plaintiffs' ComplJt will be dismissed without prejudice.

diSmi~S;~U. be denied without Ludice. An appropriate order will

·follow.

_ · Isl Anne E. Thompson
..
:.. ..ANNE_.K THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.

6

·

1