Federal District Court Confirms that Fraudulent Misjoinder Doctrine Not Adopted in Third Circuit Relative to Remand Analysis

In the case of Ashworth v. Eurofins Donor & Product Testing, Inc., No. 23-1958 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 29, 2024 Schmehl, J.), the court granted a Motion to Remand and denied a Motion to Dismiss. In this case, the Plaintiff brought products liability claims against a diverse product manufacturer Defendant and medical malpractice claims against a non-diverse implantation surgeon.

The court ruled that remand was appropriate because the doctrine of fraudulent misjoinder is not recognized in the Third Circuit Court. The court noted that the elements of the doctrine were too unsettled to be adopted in this federal court.

As such, the Court ultimately ruled that a remand of this matter to the state court was proper.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Court Dismisses Claims of Negligent Hiring and Supervision, as well as Negligent Entrustment, Against Lyft

In the case of Henry v. Marcelin, No. 24-1891 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2024 Arteaga, J.), a judge in the Eastern District Federal Court of Pennsylvania granted the Defendant rideshare comapany’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings in a personal injury case arising out of a motor vehicle collision.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was a passenger that was involved in a motor vehicle accident that involved a rideshare vehicle.

Among her claims, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, rideshare company (Lyft), was responsible on theories of negligent hiring and negligent entrustment. The Defendant rideshare company sought a partial judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Plaintiff’s claim alleging negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision, along with a claim for negligent entrustment, failed to state a claim within relief could be granted.

The court granted the rideshare defendant’s motion after finding that the Plaintiff failed to identify any past misconduct by the driver of the rideshare vehicle that would have put a reasonable employer on notice of an employee’s propensity for dangerous activities. The court also noted that there were no allegations offered by the Plaintiff to support an inference that the Defendant rideshare company knew that its driver was allegedly unqualified.

The court declined to recognize a genuine duty to investigate on the rideshare company’s part.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims of negligent hiring and related claims. 

The court also dismissed the claims for negligent entrustment. These claims were dismissed without prejudice and with leave granted to the Plaintiff to amend on the chance that the Plaintiff might be able to allege facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source “Digest of Recent Opinions.” www.Law.com (Pennsylvania Law Weekly) (Oct. 11, 2024).

Judge Mehalchick of Federal Middle District Addresses Definition of Resident Relative

In the case of Barna v. Progressive Ins. Co., No. 3:22-CV-01845-KM (M.D. Pa. Sept. 11, 2024 Mehalchick, J.), the court addressed a summary judgment filed by Defendant, State Farm, in a UIM case.

The Plaintiff claimed that State Farm wrongfully denied underinsured benefits that he was allegedly entitled to under his parents’ insurance policies.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving his father’s vehicle.

Due to the alleged severity of the Plaintiff’s injuries, the Plaintiff alleged that the liability coverage available to the at-fault driver and the coverage available on the vehicle that the Plaintiff was driving were insufficient to cover the Plaintiff’s damages. As such, the Plaintiff was also seeking to recover UIM benefits under policies issued to his stepfather and his mother, all of which policies were issued by State Farm.

A central issue in this case is whether the injured party was a “resident relative” under either policy issued by State Farm to the Plaintiff’s stepfather or his mother.

In her thorough Opinion, Judge Mehalchick reviewed the various definitions of the word “resident.” Judge Mehalchick also referred to Third Circuit precedent in which that court referred to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary to define that a person lives in a location as a resident when they occupy a home on a permanent basis.

Judge Mehalchick also noted that the federal courts have held that, if a resident relative moves out of an insured’s home, they lose the residency status, unless they move back to live with the insured under the policy on a full-time basis. 

The court noted that a “resident relative” who moves out of an insured’s home loses resident relative status except in limited circumstances, such is when the person leaves the home to go to school or on an extended vacation. 

After reviewing the record before her relative to the injured party’s association with his parents’ residence, the court found that no reasonable juror could find that the injured party had lived at his stepfather’s and mother’s residence as of the time of the incident. Accordingly, the injured party was found not to be a resident relative under the State Farm policies at issue. As such, State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Save the Date: November 14, 2024 - Lackawanna Pro Bono Gala

 

Upcoming Changes to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure

According to content in a recent edition of the Pennsylvania Bulletin, there are some changes to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure set to go into effect in January of 2025.

The Rule changes can be viewed at this LINK.

Federal District Court Addresses Jurisdictional Issues and also References Fair Share Act

In the case of Tanibajeva v. Skytop Lodge Corp., No. 3:23-CV-01846 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 3, 2024 Mehalchick, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion to Dismiss on jurisdictional issues in a case involving a zipline accident at a resort in the Poconos.

The court noted that the Plaintiff would be allowed to complete discovery in order to determine proper jurisdiction. 

Judge Mehalchick noted that, while a single shipment of a product who Pennsylvania is ordinarily not enough to confer specific personal jurisdiction, discovery in this case might reveal more significant contacts.

The court also noted that stream of commerce is not a valid jurisdictional theory. 

The court otherwise found that the Defendant in this case did not have regular and systemic Pennsylvania business.

However, the court found that the Plaintiff’s position on the jurisdiction issue was not frivolous. Accordingly, as noted, the court allowed for jurisdictional discovery to be completed.

In this Opinion, Judge Mehalchick also addressed the applicability of the Fair Share Act. 

The court noted its assessment that, under recent Pennsylvania case law, the Fair Share Act does not apply unless the Plaintiff’s potential comparative negligence is at issue. Accordingly, the court found that the allegations of joint and several liability by the Plaintiff were proper in this case. Judge Mehalchick also stated that, based upon her review of the Complaint, there did not appear to be a basis for an argument of comparative negligence.

The court also ruled that Pennsylvania law does not recognize a separate cause of action for willful and wanton misconduct or reckless indifference.

Judge Mehalchick also found the Plaintiff’s express warranty claims failed to plead that the Plaintiff purchased any product from the Defendants.  As such, that claim was dismissed.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Philadelphia County Case Transferred To Delaware Under Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens

In the case of Gravenor-Reutter v. Acme Markets, Inc., June Term, 2023 No. 2390 (C.P. Phila. Co. April 9, 2024 Bright, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion to the Superior Court outlining the reasons in support of the trial court’s granting of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss this Philadelphia County case based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens regarding the slip and fall event that occurred at an Acme in the State of Delaware.

The trial court noted that its Order dismissing the matter should be affirmed where the accident at issue occurred in Delaware, where the Defendant had merely minimal contacts in Pennsylvania, and where Delaware was a viable alternative forum for the Plaintiff’s lawsuit.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Weekly Case Alert” www.Law.com (Aug. 29, 2024).