DOBSON v. THE MILTON HERSHEY SCHOOL AND SCHOOL TRUST et al

Filing 78

ORDER denying pltf's motion 57 to certify matter for interlocutory review. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 10/10/17. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ADAM DOBSON,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff
v.
THE MILTON HERSHEY
SCHOOL, et al.,
Defendants

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-1958
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 10th day of October, 2017, upon consideration of plaintiff’s
motion (Doc. 57) to certify this matter for interlocutory review, and the court finding
no basis for certification, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), as this matter does not involve
“substantial ground for difference of opinion,” it is hereby ORDERED that
plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 57) is DENIED. 1
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
1

We are compelled to correct an apparent misapprehension of our Rule 12
decision evident in plaintiff’s briefing. This court did not hold as a matter of law
that all negligence claims against private schools are barred by the gist of the action
doctrine. (See Doc. 58 at 2, 8). We held only that the negligence claims asserted by
plaintiff against defendants in this action are barred because they are subsumed by
the express terms of the contract, to wit: “the School will provide a home, food,
clothing, health care and an education for your child;” “[y]ou authorize the School
to provide your child with all necessary . . . psychological and psychiatric services;”
and “[t]he School is responsible for your child’s health care while he or she is in our
care.” (See Doc. 11-3 at 5-6). The authority relied upon by plaintiff to show that
there is “substantial ground for difference of opinion” is inapposite. The cited cases
did not involve a direct contractual relationship between a student’s parents and
the school relating to the school’s duty of care. Moreover, to the extent plaintiff
seeks reconsideration of the court’s order dated August 10, 2017, (see Doc. 58 at 2),
plaintiff’s motion is untimely under Local Rule of Court 7.10.