ZILINSKAS v. UPMC et al
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER denying re 21 MOTION for Reconsideration re 14 Brief in Support of Motion and 13 Motion to Dismiss filed by UPMC PRESBYTERIAN SHADYSIDE, UPMC. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 5/29/2013. (ajt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DIANE M. ZILINSKAS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UPMC; UPMC PRESBYTERIAN
SHADYSIDE,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 13-82
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I.
INTRODUCTION
Presently before the Court is Defendants’, UPMC’s and UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside’s,
Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) of the Court’s
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons that
follow, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 21] is denied.
II.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on January 15, 2013 alleging claims under 29 U.S.C.
§§ 621, and 623 et seq. [ADEA]. Defendants responded on April 5, 2013 by filing a motion to
dismiss the complaint [ECF No. 13] and corresponding brief [ECF No. 14] claiming that it was
untimely. After Plaintiff filed a reply brief [ECF No. 16], the Court entered an Order for
Plaintiff to “file a brief addressing the application of equitable tolling” and for the Defendants to
file a response. See 4/26/2013 Order. The Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order
[ECF No. 20] denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss on May 21, 2013. Defendants now move
the Court to reconsider.
Defendants argue that “the Court’s Memorandum Opinion does not address and cannot
1
be reconciled with the following arguments and authorities” and provide four arguments in
support of its motion for reconsideration:
(1)
There is a presumption under the law – and Plaintiff does
not dispute – that the right-to-sue letter arrived at Attorney
Sheerer’s firm at 1000 Main Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15215 within
three days after it was mailed, or by September 29, 2012. . . .
(2)
Under controlling Supreme Court precedent, receipt of the
notification letter from the EEOC by Attorney Sheerer’s office on
September 29, 2012 is receipt by Attorney Sheerer, thus beginning
the running of the limitations period for bringing suit,
notwithstanding that Attorney Sheerer may not have personally
received notice until later. . . .
(3)
Regardless of whether or when Plaintiff or her lawyers
received the EEOC’s letter, they had adequate notice that, under
the law (ADEA), Plaintiff had a right to sue in federal court 60
days after she filed her charge with the EEOC – over three years
ago, in July 2009. . . .
(4)
In the end, “[p]rocedural requirements established by
Congress for gaining access to the federal courts are not to be
disregarded by courts out of a vague sympathy for particular
litigants.”
Defs’ Mot. for Reconsideration [ECF No. 21] at 2 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
III.
ANALYSIS
a. Legal Standard
A motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) “must rely on
one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.’” Kulesa v.
Rex, 2013 WL 1278451, at *2 (3d Cir. March 29, 2013) (unpublished) (quoting Lazaridis v.
Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010)).
Defendants argue that the third situation applies. To demonstrate clear error or manifest
injustice, the Supreme Court mandates a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
2
committed.” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001) (citing United States v. U.S. Gypsum
Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). Moreover, a defendant must “base its motion on arguments that
were previously raised but were overlooked by the Court.” United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d
670, 676 (E.D.Pa. 2003). A motion for reconsideration “is not a proper vehicle to merely
attempt to convince the court to rethink a decision it has already made[,]” Colon v. Colonial
Intermediate Unit 20, 443 F.Supp.2d 659, 667 (M.D.Pa. 2006) (citations omitted) and “parties
are not free to relitigate issues that the Court has already decided.” Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d at 676
(citations omitted). As such, a motion for reconsideration may not be used by an “unsuccessful
party to rehash” arguments previously disposed of by the Court. Keyes v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger
Corp., 766 F.Supp. 277, 280 (E.D.Pa. 1991).
b. Motion for Reconsideration
In its present motion, Defendants argue that the Court overlooked arguments raised in its
motion to dismiss, such that it must be corrected to avoid a manifest injustice and clear error of
law. Defendants’ first two arguments in support of reconsideration were addressed by the Court
in its Memorandum Opinion. Specifically applying the equitable tolling doctrine, the Court
stated: “[A] plaintiff may file suit after the statutory period has expired ‘if they have been
prevented from filing in a timely manner due to sufficiently inequitable circumstances.” Memo.
Op. [ECF No. 20] at 5 (quoting Seitzinger v. Reading Hosp. and Med. Ctr., 165 F.3d 236, 240
(3d Cir. 1999)). The Court found that equitable tolling applied in this circumstance due to the
fatal illness and untimely death of counsel and found the complaint to be timely filed.
Defendants’ arguments ignore the premise that equitable tolling is properly employed when a
complaint is filed after the statute of limitations has expired. The Court addressed these issues
by finding that although there was a presumption that the letter was received three days after the
3
EEOC mailed it, this presumption was inapplicable because of the equitable tolling doctrine, and
the complaint was deemed timely filed. While Defendants’ third argument is correct in asserting
that Plaintiff has the right to sue in federal court sixty days after she filed her charge with the
EEOC under 29 U.S.C. §626(d)(1), this section does not mandate that a plaintiff file suit within
this time period; it is merely a permissive section that does not affect the statutory period that a
right to sue letter triggers. Finally, Defendants’ fourth argument does not assert an error of law
nor do Defendants explain how it is manifestly unjust.
Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating that the Memorandum Opinion
constituted a clear error, or resulted in a manifest injustice and the Court finds that it did not.
Defendants’ arguments simply ask the Court to “rethink what [it] had already thought through
rightly or wrongly.” Scarnati v. Social Sec., 2013 WL 2253159, at *1 (W.D.Pa. May 22, 2013)
(quoting Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F.Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993)).
Because the arguments presented have been addressed by the Court, and Defendants have not
shown that a mistake has been committed, Defendants’ arguments are not a basis for a finding of
clear error or manifest injustice. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is denied.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 21] of the
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied.
An appropriate Order follows.
DATED: May 29, 2013
By the Court,
s/Robert C. Mitchell
ROBERT C. MITCHELL
United States Magistrate Judge
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DIANE M. ZILINSKAS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UPMC; UPMC PRESBYTERIAN
SHADYSIDE,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 13-82
ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of May, 2013, upon consideration of Defendants’, UPMC’s
and UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside’s, Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e) of the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration
[ECF No. 21] is DENIED.
s/Robert C. Mitchell
ROBERT C. MITCHELL
United States Magistrate Judge
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?