Roberts v. Dedmond et al

Filing 20

ORDER/ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE - It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Pltf's motion for relief from final jdgmt &/or reconsideration 16 is GRANTED.; 2. Ct's order 15 denying pltf's motion to transver & granting defts' MTD is VACATED. ; 3. Pltf's motion to transfer 4 is GRANTED.; 4. Defts' MTD for lack of venue & personal jurisdiction 5 is DENIED as MOOT.; 5. Clrk of Ct directed to TRANSFER this matter to USDC for District of South Carolina forthwith. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 12/05/13. (ki) [Transferred from Pennsylvania Middle on 12/6/2013.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DENISE ROBERTS,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
BARNABY DEDMOND, M.D., and :
LEXINGTON MEDICAL CENTER, :
:
Defendants.
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-1467
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of December, 2013, upon consideration of the motion
(Doc. 16) for relief from final judgment and/or reconsideration pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), filed by Denise Roberts (“Roberts”) on November 4,
2013, wherein Roberts’ counsel requests the court to vacate its prior order (Doc. 15)
denying her motion (Doc. 4) to transfer venue to the District Court for the District
of South Carolina and granting defendants’ motion (Doc. 5) to dismiss for lack of
proper venue, and the court noting that our prior decision was largely premised
upon Roberts’ failure to articulate any prejudice that might flow from dismissal of
her claims in lieu of transfer, (see Doc. 15 at 2 and n.1), and it appearing that
Roberts’ counsel misapprehended the applicable statute of limitations in briefing
the prior motions and now concedes that failure to recognize and address the issue
was error, and it further appearing that the statute of limitations applicable to

Roberts’ claims has in fact expired1 and that this court’s dismissal of her claims
would thus prevent her from refiling this action in the appropriate venue, thus
foreclosing all avenues of recovery to her, (see Doc. 18 at 3-5), and the court
observing that Rule 60(b) allows a district court to “relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” FED . R. CIV . P. 60(b)(1), and finding
that the errors of Roberts’ counsel in failing to argue the statute of limitations issue
in fairness should not be imputed to Roberts herself to forever preclude a merits
review of her claims, and that the prejudicial effect of the expired limitations period
compels transfer rather than dismissal of Roberts’ claims, and thus concluding that
Rule 60(b) relief is appropriate, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 16) for relief from final judgment and/or
reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) is
GRANTED.

2.

The court’s order (Doc. 15) denying plaintiff’s motion to transfer and
granting defendants’ motion to dismiss is VACATED.

1

In resolving the parties’ prior motions, the court observed sua sponte that
the statute of limitations governing medical malpractice claims in South Carolina is
three (3) years and that Roberts’ claims, accruing on June 9, 2011, were not yet time
barred. This observation was correct when operating under the premise that the
Lexington Medical Center was a private party. However, in the instantly pending
motion, Roberts avers that the Lexington Medical Center is a government affiliated
medical hospital, thus subjecting it to the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, which
contains a two (2) year statute of limitations on medical malpractice claims. See
S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-110 (“[A]ny action brought pursuant to this chapter is
forever barred unless an action is commenced within two years after the date the
loss was or should have been discovered.”). In light of this new information, the
court must revisit and ultimately vacate its earlier conclusion that Roberts would
suffer no prejudice from the dismissal of her complaint.
2

3.

Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 4) to transfer is GRANTED.

4.

Defendants’ motion (Doc. 5) to dismiss for lack of venue and personal
jurisdiction is DENIED as moot.

5.

The Clerk of Court is directed to TRANSFER this matter to the United
States District Court for the District of South Carolina forthwith.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

3