ROBINSON EYE CENTER, LLC v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM ORDER OF COURT DENYING 23 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 5/16/2013. (lcb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROBINSON EYE CENTER, LLC,
Plaintiff,

13cv0383
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR
CLARIFICATION OF ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
(DOC. NO. 23)
Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of
this Court’s Memorandum Order of Court denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to
state a claim (Doc. No. 13).1 Doc. No. 23.
Defendant contends that the Court, in its Memorandum Order, “apparently concluded as a
matter of law that the date of loss was when the claim was reported to State Farm” and thus that
Plaintiff’s claim is not barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Doc. No. 24, 1.
This is not the Court’s holding. The Court merely determined that the factual averments, taken
as true, as required in light of the motion to dismiss, provided sufficient support that the statute
of limitations could have been triggered on February 28, 2011, rather than in the Spring of 2010
and thus, Plaintiff’s Complaint would not be dismissed. The Court has set forth its rationale and
will not revisit its decision to deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The reasoning set forth in
1

A proper motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) must rely on one of three grounds: (1) intervening change in
controlling law; (2) availability of new evidence that was not available when the Court entered judgment; or (3) the
need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669
(3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 678 (3d Cir. 1999)).

Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is more akin to a Motion for Summary Judgment and
therefore, the Court will not address these arguments at this time (e.g. whether ceiling tiles
falling in early February caused damages such to trigger the statute of limitations is a question of
fact which is not appropriate at this time). The Court will simply reiterate that its reading of
Plaintiff’s Complaint is that no damages occurred until February 28, 2011, when Plaintiff’s
optical equipment was damaged, which happens to coincide with the date that it filed a claim
with Defendant.
AND NOW, this 16th day of May 2013, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant’s
Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. No. 23) is DENIED.
s/ Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge

cc:

All Registered ECF Counsel and Parties

2