Ponzini et al v. Monroe County et al

Filing 400

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 366 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or in the alternative, motions for new trial or for remittitur as follows: 1.Paul James, Patricia Bauer, Christina Rowe, and Grace Ramos renewed motion for judg ment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs section 1983 claim is GRANTED. 2.PrimeCare Medical, Inc.s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs section 1983 claim is GRANTED. 3.Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(c), should th e Court of Appeals reverse or vacate the Courts entry of judgment as a matter of law for the PrimeCare Defendants on Plaintiffs section 1983 claim, the Court conditionally DENIES the PrimeCare Defendants motion for a new trial. 4.The PrimeCare Defend ants motion for judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs negligence claim is DENIED. 5.PrimeCare Medical, Inc.s renewed motion for a judgment as a matter of law seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages is GRANTED. 6.Pursuant to Fed eral Rule of Civil Procedure 50(c), should the Court of Appeals reverse or vacate the Courts entry of judgment as a matter of law for the PrimeCare Defendants on Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, the Court conditionally DENIES the PrimeCare Defe ndants motion for a new trial. 7.The PrimeCare Defendants motion for a new trial on Plaintiffs negligence claim is DENIED. 8.The PrimeCare Defendants motion for a new trial on damages and/or remittitur is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 8/30/17 (jam)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PETER PONZINI, ESQUIRE and
MIRYEM BARBAROS, as
Co-Administrators of the Estate of
Mumun Barbaros, Deceased,
Plaintiffs,

v.

3:11-CV-00413
(JUDGE MARIANI)

PRIMECARE MEDICAL INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER

AND NOW, THIS

30~ DAY OF AUGUST 2017, upon consideration of Paul

James, Patricia Bauer, Christina Rowe, Wendy Johnson, Grace Ramos, and PrimeCare
Medical lnc.'s (the "PrimeCare Defendants") renewed motions for judgment as a matter of
law, or in the alternative, motions for new trial or for remittitur, (Doc. 366), IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT the PrimeCare Defendants' motions are GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. Paul James, Patricia Bauer, Christina Rowe, and Grace Ramos' renewed
motion for judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs' section 1983 claim is
GRANTED.
2. PrimeCare Medical, lnc.'s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on
Plaintiffs' section 1983 claim is GRANTED.

3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure SO(c), should the Court of
Appeals reverse or vacate the Court's entry of judgment as a matter of law
for the PrimeCare Defendants on Plaintiffs' section 1983 claim, the Court
conditionally DENIES the PrimeCare Defendants' motion for a new trial.
4. The PrimeCare Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on
Plaintiffs' negligence claim is DENIED.
5. PrimeCare Medical, lnc.'s renewed motion for a judgment as a matter of law
seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages is GRANTED.
6. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure SO(c), should the Court of
Appeals reverse or vacate the Court's entry of judgment as a matter of law
for the PrimeCare Defendants on Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages, the
Court conditionally DENIES the PrimeCare Defendants' motion for a new
trial.
7. The PrimeCare Defendants' motion for a new trial on Plaintiffs' negligence
claim is DENIED.
8. The PrimeCare Defendants' motion for a new trial on damages and/or
remittitur is DENIED.

Robert .
1
United States District Judge
2