NAGY et al v. ST. LUKE'S UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL et al

Filing 32

OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 4/3/2014. 4/3/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SES AND E-MAILED.(amas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSEPH NAGY et al.,
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 13-1588

v.
ST. LUKE'S UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION
Slomsky, J.
I.

April 3, 2014

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Joseph and Katherine Nagy, proceeding pro se, bring this action as husband and

wife for injuries suffered by Katherine Nagy on March 23, 2011 at St. Luke’s Warren Hospital
(“St. Luke’s Hospital”). The Complaint contains two Counts. Count I alleges “negligence,
carelessness, gross negligence, recklessness, willful and knowing acts and/or failures of acts”
against St. Luke’s Hospital. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 47-53.) Count II alleges the same acts of
negligence against ABC Corporations (1-5) and John Does (1-5). (Id. at ¶¶ 54-57.)
Plaintiffs have also sought to join additional defendants in this case.1 (Doc. No. 12.)
First, Plaintiffs seek to add as a defendant Manor Care of Easton, PA, LLC (“Manor Care”), a
skilled nursing facility located in Easton, Pennsylvania, where Ms. Nagy currently resides. (Id.
at 2.) Plaintiffs also seek to join Edward Schuch and Carole Hocking as agents of Manor Care,

1

On October 7, 2013, Plaintiffs’ filed a response titled: “Response to St. Luke’s University
Hospital or if Indeed Incorrectly Pled St. Luke Warren Hospital’s Memorandum of Law and
Motions and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss and Counterclaim with Joinder of Causes and
Parties Against Manor Care of Easton PA LLC,” seeking to join additional defendants to this
case. Because Plaintiffs’ motions have lengthy titles, the Court will shorten them for purposes
of this Opinion and include their docket numbers as a reference to the record.
1

as well as HCR ManorCare Inc., which is not the correct name for Manor Care. (Id.; Doc. No.
22 at 1.) The Court will refer to these parties collectively as “Manor Care Defendants.”
Next, Plaintiffs seek to join Kennedy, PC Law Offices as a defendant. (Doc. No. 12 at 2.)
Kennedy, PC Law Offices represents Manor Care in a collections case against the Nagys in the
Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Case No. C48-Cv2013-8832.2 (Doc. No. 22 at
6.) Plaintiffs also seek to join Rodney Myer, Esquire, and Steven E. Bernstein, Esquire, lawyers
at Kennedy, PC Law Offices. (Doc. No. 12 at 2.) The Court will refer to these parties
collectively as “Kennedy Defendants.” 3
On September 4, 2013, St. Luke’s Hospital filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 4.) On
October 7, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition. (Doc. No. 12.) On November 14,
2013, after being joined as defendants, Kennedy Defendants filed a Motion to Remand the case
to State Court. (Doc. Nos. 16, 17.) On November 15, 2013, the Court held a hearing in this
matter. Following the hearing, Manor Care Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction and for Additional Grounds. (Doc. No. 21.) For reasons that follow, the Court will
grant St. Luke’s Hospital’s Motion to Dismiss and dismiss this case for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. Because dismissal is appropriate, the Court need not address the Motions of the
other Defendants or the claims against them.

2

On October 7, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Removal and Counterclaims [sic] of the state
court proceeding to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This matter has been docketed as
5:13-cv-05957-JLS, and is currently pending before the Honorable Jeffrey L. Schmehl.

3

In their Response to St. Luke’s Hospital’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs also seek to join the
following defendants: Aetna, Inc. and agent Medical Director George Vermeire; Northampton
County and “agents Director Archie Disidore; Guardian Laurie Dart-Schnaufer; Lisa Spitale;
the Honorable Craig Dally; Dr. Dalsaniya; and Dr. Stephen Ksiazek. (Doc. No. 12 at 2.) These
parties have not been served and are not properly joined as defendants. Plaintiffs do not allege
specific claims against these defendants.
2

II.

BACKGROUND
On March 25, 2013, Plaintiffs Joseph and Katherine Nagy commenced this action against

St. Luke’s Hospital and ABC Corporations (1-5) and John Does (1-5). The following facts are
set forth in their Complaint.
In March 2011, Katherine Nagy was admitted to St. Luke’s Hospital, Warren Campus,
located in Phillipsburg, New Jersey, for urinary problems and slurred speech. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶
8-10.) While a patient there, Ms. Nagy was treated for “acute stroke in the right corona area”
and “urinary incontinence.” (Id. at ¶ 11.) On or about March 23, 2011, Mr. Nagy was informed
that Ms. Nagy would be discharged. (Id. at ¶ 12.) When Mr. Nagy arrived at the hospital, he
was told that an additional test was going to be run on Ms. Nagy, after which he could take her
home. (Id.) That same day, Mr. Nagy was informed that Ms. Nagy was in the intensive care unit
(“ICU”). (Id.) On April 5, 2011, Ms. Nagy was discharged from the hospital. (Id. at ¶ 13.)
In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege the following facts based on “consultation
documentation” of the hospital. These facts occurred from on or about March 23, 2011 to April
5, 2011. On or about March 25, 2011, Ms. Nagy had “slurred speech and urinary incontinence,
and was noted to have left facial droop as well, and was subsequently found to have acute right
cerebrovascular accident by MRI.” (Id.) On or about March 27, 2011, Ms. Nagy was “unable to
communicate much because of the stroke.” (Id. at ¶ 14.) On or about April 4, 2011, Ms. Nagy
had “surgery for the PEG tube.” (Id. at ¶ 15.) Tube feedings were scheduled for Ms. Nagy at
Brakeley Park Center, a Genesis HealthCare Company in Phillipsburg, New Jersey. (Id.)
In the Complaint, Plaintiffs state that Ms. Nagy now suffers from: “permanent serious
bodily injury consisting of: acute paralysis of the left extremities especially the left arm and left
area of the throat, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, fear anxiety, and/or other mental
and physical injuries as a result of which she was rendered sick, sore and disabled . . . .” (Id. at ¶
3

38.) Plaintiffs allege that these injuries were caused by an “undocumented medical procedure”
performed on Ms. Nagy by St. Luke’s Hospital without her consent. (Id. at ¶ 48.)
From January 2012 to April 2012, Ms. Nagy suffered a series of medical complications
and was admitted on several occasions to St. Luke’s Hospital, to a separate hospital called Easton
Hospital, and to New Eastwood Care and Rehabilitation (“New Eastwood”), a rehabilitation
center adjacent to Easton Hospital.4 (Id. at ¶¶ 16-25.) Thereafter, on or about April 17, 2012,
Ms. Nagy was admitted to Manor Care, the skilled nursing facility located in Easton,
Pennsylvania. (Id. at ¶ 26.) Plaintiffs state that Ms. Nagy was “pre-certified with Aetna
[insurance] coverage” for this admission. (Id. at ¶ 25.)
On or about April 20, 2012, Mr. Nagy received a bill for $28,667.99 from New Eastwood
for care provided to her from December 2011 to March 2012, after her initial hospitalization at
St. Luke’s Hospital. (Id. at ¶ 27.) Mr. Nagy sent New Eastwood a Notice of Arbitration with a
demand for $150,000 for “wrongful admission to [St. Luke’s] Warren Hospital.” (Id.) The
Nagys apparently refused to pay New Eastwood for services rendered after Ms. Nagy’s initial
hospitalization at St. Luke’s Hospital.
In May 2012, Mr. Nagy received a benefits summary from Aetna insurance for Mr. and
Ms. Nagy. (Id. at ¶ 29.) Plaintiffs allege that they each have $500,000 in coverage, which
includes convalescent facilities. (Id.) Plaintiffs also allege that Mr. Nagy was told that Ms. Nagy
has “‘unlimited’ nursing home care coverage.” (Id.) In July 2012, Ms. Nagy received a letter
from Aetna denying coverage for “the period 07/03/2012-07/03/2012 for 1 Day(s) Skilled

4

The Nagys distinguish the complications suffered by Ms. Nagy from January 2012 to
April 2012 from her prior medical problems starting in March 2011. Taking the
Complaint as a whole, Ms. Nagy had medical problems from March 2011 to April
2013.
4

Nursing.” (Id. at ¶ 30.) Plaintiffs contend that Aetna now claims that Ms. Nagy does not require
skilled nursing care and should be at home or at another facility. (Id.)
As of March 2013, Ms. Nagy continued to reside at Manor Care. (Id. at ¶ 31.) On March
25, 2013, Plaintiffs commenced this action against St. Luke’s Hospital and ABC Corporations (15) and John Does (1-5). In Count I, as noted above, Plaintiffs allege “negligence, carelessness,
gross negligence, recklessness, willful and knowing acts and/or failures of acts” against St.
Luke’s Hospital in connection with injuries suffered by Ms. Nagy on March 23, 2011. (Id. at ¶¶
47-53.) In Count II, Plaintiffs allege the same acts of negligence against ABC Corporations (1-5)
and John Does (1-5). (Id. at ¶¶ 54-57.)
On September 4, 2013, St. Luke’s Hospital filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint. (Doc. No. 4.) On October 7, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Response to St. Luke’s Hospital
and Counterclaim With Joinder of Causes and Parties Against Manorcare of Easton PA LLC.
(Doc. No. 12.) As previously noted, in this Response, Plaintiffs seek to join numerous other
defendants to this case.5 Among them are Manor Care Defendants. (Doc. No. 12.) In the
Response, Plaintiffs’ also request joinder of the state court matter against them by Manor Care
(Id. at 1-2), and on October 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Exhibit with a copy of the Complaint from
the state court case. (Doc. No. 13.) According to the Complaint, the state court case was

5

Plaintiffs also desire to join the following parties as defendants: Aetna, Inc.; Medical Director
George Vermeire; Northampton County; Director Archie Disidore; alleged Guardian Laurie
Dart-Schnaufer; Lisa Spitale; the Honorable Craig Dally; Dr. Dalsaniya; and Dr. Stephen
Ksiazek. (Doc. No. 12 at 2.) None of these defendants have been served, and Plaintiffs do not
specify claims against them. As discussed infra, the Court does not have jurisdiction over this
case because of the lack of diversity of citizenship among the parties. Joinder of parties and
causes of action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18, 19, and 20 is permissible only
where the court has jurisdiction based upon a federal question or upon diversity of citizenship
and the requisite jurisdictional amount. See Trio Process Corp. v. L. Goldstein’s Sons, Inc., 250
F.Supp. 926, 928 (E.D. Pa. 1966). Because the Court does not have jurisdiction over this case,
it need not address the issue of proper joinder of these parties.
5

brought by Kennedy, PC Law Offices as attorney and debt collector for Manor Care in
connection with an attempt to collect a debt of $172,709.75 owed by Ms. Nagy to Manor Care
for her care. (Doc. No. 13-2.) In the Response, Plaintiffs also seek joinder of Kennedy
Defendants.
On September 4, 2013, St. Luke’s Hospital filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint. (Doc. No. 4.) On September 23, 2013, Plaintiffs’ filed a Motion for Default Against
St. Luke’s Hospital. (Doc. No. 9.) On November 14, 2013, Kennedy Defendants filed a Motion
to Remand to State Court. (Doc. Nos. 16, 17.) On November 15, 2013, the Court held a hearing
on the motions. Following the hearing, Manor Care Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction and for Additional Grounds. (Doc. No. 21.) For reasons that follow, the
Court will dismiss this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
III.

ANALYSIS
A. The Court Will Dismiss this Case for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
St. Luke’s Hospital submits that Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed because this Court

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. The Court agrees and will dismiss the case.
A federal district court has a duty to consider its own jurisdiction prior to considering the
merits of an action. Pippett v. Waterford Dev., LLC, 166 F.Supp. 2d 233, 235 n. 1 (E.D. Pa.
2001). Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is a ground for dismissal and may be raised at any
time by the parties or by the court sua sponte. Walls v. Ahmed, 832 F.Supp. 940, 941 (E.D. Pa.
1993) (citations omitted). The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the claim is properly
before the court as the party asserting jurisdiction. Walthour et al. v. Child and Youth Servs., et
al., 728 F. Supp. 2d 628, 634 (E.D. Pa. 2010). In reviewing a factual challenge to the Court’s
subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court may consider evidence outside the pleadings. See Gould
Electronics Inc. v. U.S., 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000).
6

Plaintiffs allege that this Court has jurisdiction over this case based on diversity of
citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Doc. No. 40 at 5.) Section 1332 gives district
courts subject-matter jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds
$75,000 and the case is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For a district
court to have diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, complete diversity is required. This means that
“in cases with multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants, no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same
state as any defendant.” Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 419 (3d Cir.
2010). In other words, if a defendant is a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff, then complete
diversity of citizenship is lacking and the Court is divested of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Citizenship is based on the concept of “domicile.” Last v. Elwyn, Inc., 935 F.Supp. 594,
597 (E.D. Pa. 1996). Domicile is the state in which a party is physically located with the intent
to remain there. Rotella v. McConnell, No. 98-2363, 1999 WL 124418, *1 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 4,
1999). A person may be a domiciliary of only one state. De Tolla v. Mele, No. 99-1312, 1999
WL 163603, *3 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 1999). For a corporation, domicile can be based on both the
state in which it is incorporated and the state in which it has its principal place of business.
Swiger v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., 540 F.2d 179, 182 (3d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).
Citizenship, for diversity purposes, is determined by the party’s domicile at the time the
Complaint was filed. Grand Union Supermarkets, Inc. v. H.E. Lockhart Mgmt., Inc., 316 F.3d
408, 410 (3d Cir. 2003).
Here, Mr. Nagy is domiciled in New Jersey. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 1.) In the Complaint,
Plaintiffs state that Ms. Nagy is domiciled both in Pennsylvania at Manor Care and in New
Jersey at the home she shares with Mr. Nagy. (Id. at ¶ 2.) However, as stated above, a person
may only be domiciled in one state. Regardless of Ms. Nagy’s domicile, complete diversity is

7

lacking among the parties. St. Luke’s Hospital is incorporated in the state of New Jersey and has
its principal place of business there. (See Doc. 4 at Ex. B.) Therefore, St. Luke’s Hospital is
domiciled in New Jersey. Because St. Luke’s Hospital is domiciled in the same state as Mr.
Nagy, who is a plaintiff in this case, complete diversity of citizenship is lacking.
Plaintiffs state that St. Luke’s Hospital is domiciled in Pennsylvania, despite the fact that
it operates a hospital in New Jersey. (Id. at ¶ 4.) This is incorrect. Although St. Luke’s Hospital
reincorporated between the time of Ms. Nagy’s injury and the filing of this case, its domicile did
not change.6 (Doc. No. 4 at Ex. C.) St. Luke’s Hospital has remained incorporated in New
Jersey, with its principal place of business there as well. When one of multiple plaintiffs is a
citizen of the same state as one of the defendants, complete diversity is lacking. Because Mr.
Nagy is domiciled in New Jersey and St. Luke’s Hospital is also domiciled in New Jersey,
diversity of citizenship does not exist between the parties.
As stated above, a federal district court has a duty to consider its own jurisdiction prior to
considering the merits of an action. Without complete diversity of citizenship between the
parties, the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. Lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction is a ground for dismissal. Accordingly, the Court will not address the merits of this
action and will dismiss this case.7

6

Most importantly, diversity of citizenship jurisdiction is determined at the time the Complaint is
filed. Frett-Smith v. Vanterpool, 511 F.3d 396, 399 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332).

7

The Court also notes that Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury suits
bars this case from going forward. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524. Plaintiffs allege that Ms. Nagy was
injured by St. Luke’s Hospital on March 23, 2011. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 47-53.) Plaintiffs
commenced this case on March 25, 2013. (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiffs commenced this case
more than two-years after the injury occurred. Under Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations, this
case would be barred.
8

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that diversity of citizenship jurisdiction is

lacking in this case. As such, the case will be dismissed.

9