FREEDMAN et al v. FISHER et al

Filing 99

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. WILLIAM DITTER, JR ON 2/2/15. 2/3/15 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GARY FREEDMAN, et al.
Plaintiffs
v.
STEVEN FISHER, M.D., et al.
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

No. 13-3145

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of February, 2015, upon consideration of Defendant
Abington Memorial Hospital’s (“AMH”) motion for “Reconsideration of the Court’s
Prior Order Granting Plaintiff’s Leave to File the Amended Complaint” (Doc. No. 87), I
make the following findings and reach the following conclusions:
1.

AMH filed the instant motion on October 20, 2014, seeking reconsideration
of my May 6, 2014 Order granting the plaintiffs’ motion to amend its
complaint. Defendant AMH argues that I should reconsider that order
because the plaintiffs “delayed in bringing their EMTALA claim until
crucial discovery had been completed in this case” thus prejudicing AMH’s
defense of the EMTALA claim. See Reply Mem. of Law (Doc. No. 87) at
2, 5 (citing Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196, 203 (3d Cir. 2005) (it is
proper to vacate a prior order granting leave to amend and to strike the
amended complaint, rather than to deny relation back, upon a finding of
undue delay in moving for leave to amend)); see also Nieves-Luciano v.
Hernandez-Torres, 397 F.3d 1, 4 (1 st Cir. 2005) (noting that pre-trial orders
from which no interlocutory appeal may be taken “remain open to trial court
reconsideration” until the entry of judgment) (citation omitted). A finding
of undue delay would justify striking the plaintiffs’ amended complaint
thereby eliminating the plaintiffs’ EMTALA claim.

2.

Here, AMH has failed to establish undue delay and has failed to justify the
timing of its motion for reconsideration. In the plaintiffs’ original motion to
amend, they alleged that they “first learned of an alleged EMTALA
violation at the time of Dr. Turner’s deposition when a document was

produced prior to the start of her deposition by counsel for Abington
Memorial Hospital evidencing that a standard order set used at the
Abington Memorial Hospital Emergency Department required a chest x-ray
be given to all patients complaining of chest pain.” See Pls’ Mot. to Amend
(Doc. No. 42), at 4. The plaintiffs received this information on March 18,
2014, and filed their motion to amend on April 15, 2014. AMH had the
opportunity to present the instant arguments regarding undue delay in the
initial response to the motion to amend as well as its sur-reply. AMH does
not point to any new evidence or manifest injustice which would compel
reconsideration and makes no effort to justify the filing of its motion for
reconsideration more than five months after the issuance of my order
granting the plaintiffs’ motion to amend. As AMH’s motion to reconsider
is an attempt to relitigate the issue of amending the plaintiffs’ complaint,
the motion is without merit.
Accordingly, I HEREBY ORDER that Abington Memorial Hospital’s
motion to reconsider (Doc. No. 87), is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:

/s J. William Ditter, Jr.
J. WILLIAM DITTER, JR., J.

2