OETTING v. HEFFLER, RADETICH & SAITTA, LLP

Filing 117

ORDER THAT BECAUSE THE INJURIES ALLEGED BY PLFF ACCRUED IN PENNSYLVANIA, UNDER THE MISSOURI BORROWING STATUTE, THE PENNSYLVANIA TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO ALL CLAIMS IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SCHEDULING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WILL BE SCHEDULED IN DUE COURSE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 8/11/17. 8/11/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES OETTING, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION

v.
NO. 11-4757
HEFFLER, RADETICH & SAITTA, LLP,
EDWARD J. SINCAVAGE,
EDWARD J. RADETICH, JR., and
MICHAEL T. BANCROFT,
Defendants.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 11th day of August, 2017, upon consideration of Defendants’
Memorandum on Choice of Law Issues (Doc. No. 107, filed January 27, 2017), Plaintiffs’
Conflict of Laws Memorandum (Doc. No. 108, filed February 24, 2017), Defendants’ Reply
Memorandum on Choice of Law Issues (Doc. No. 109, filed March 10, 2017), Defendants’
Supplemental Memorandum of Law on Choice of Law Issues (Doc. No. 113, filed June 16,
2017), Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Response to this Court’s Order (Doc.
No. 114, filed June 23, 2017), and Defendants’ Supplemental Reply Memorandum of Law on
Choice of Law Issues (Doc. No. 115, filed June 30, 2017), and following a telephone conference
with the parties, through counsel, on August 4, 2017, for the reasons set forth in the
accompanying Memorandum dated August 11, 2017, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.

Because the injuries alleged by plaintiff accrued in Pennsylvania, under the

Missouri borrowing statute, the Pennsylvania two-year statute of limitations applies to all claims
in the Second Amended Complaint;

2.

The Missouri savings statute applies to all claims in the Second Amended

Complaint, and those claims survive and will be allowed to proceed—plaintiff’s claims are not
barred by the expiration of Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations; and
3.

Missouri substantive law governs all claims in the Second Amended Complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a telephone conference for the purpose of scheduling
further proceedings will be scheduled in due course.
BY THE COURT:

/ s Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.

2