Judge Nealon Reviews Standards for Motion for Reconsideration

In the case of Fertig v. Kelley, No. 16-CV-4801 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Dec. 4, 2020 Nealon, J.), the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of a Partial Summary Judgment entered in favor of the Defendant insurance company on the bad faith claim. 

The Tort Talk blog post on Judge Nealon's original decision in this case can be viewed HERE.   

This latest decision is notable for Judge Nealon’s recitation of the standard of review for a Motion for Reconsideration.


The court noted that a Motion for Reconsideration is subject to the sound discretion of the trial court judge. Under 42 Pa. C.S.A. §5505, a trial court may reconsider one of its earlier Orders only if the Motion for Reconsideration is filed within thirty (30) days of the entry of the disputed Order.

Judge Nealon also noted that, to be granted, a Motion for Reconsideration generally requires an intervening change in the law, newly discovered evidence, or a clear error of law.

The court found no support for the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration in this case.


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

Federal Western District Court of Pennsylvania Finds Punitive Damages Awarded by Jury at a 100:1 Ratio to Be Unconstitutionally Excessive

In the case of Hyman v. Devlin, No. 3:17-89 (W.D. Pa. June 10, 2019 Gibson, J.), the court ruled that a 100:1 ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages in a jury award was unconstitutional.   

This case arose out of a Pennsylvania State Police Trooper’s intervention in the civil repossession of an automobile. The case proceeded to a jury trial and the jury returned the verdict in the Plaintiff’s favor, awarding her $5,000.00 in compensatory damages and $500,000.00 in punitive damages.

Following the verdict, the Defendant filed a Post-Trial Motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure arguing, in part, that the jury’s punitive damages award was unconstitutionally excessive.   

In this case, the court ruled that, based upon a compensatory damages award of $5,000.00, the maximum allowable punitive damages award would be $30,000.00.

This decision is also notable for its review of the law surrounding Motions for Reconsideration in federal courts.

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.   Please check out Attorney Beck’s excellent Drug and Device Law blog HERE.

Judge Minora of Lackawanna County Denies Motion for Reconsideration in Medical Malpractice Case

In a recent decision in the case of Rarrick v. Silbert, No. 2002-CV-4951 (C.P. Lacka. Co. June 23, 2015 Minora, J.), Judge Carmen D. Minora, of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, denied a Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of his previously denial of the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a medical malpractice case against a psychiatrist and another Defendant entity in a case involving allegations that the Defendants failed to take appropriate steps to avoid a situation with an emotionally unstable individual from escalating into a hostage-taken event for the Plaintiff and her family members that had to be defused by police intervention.  

Judge Minora laid out the standard of review for Motions to Reconsideration and found that the Defendant’s motion had been timely filed.

Judge Minora rejected the defense contention that, since the Court found in its previous decision in the matter that there was no common law duty owed to the Plaintiff, there could be no valid claim by the Plaintiff.   To the contrary, Judge Minora found that the Mental Health Procedures Act created a statutory duty of care owed to the Plaintiff that allowed the claim to proceed. 

The Court also rejected the defense argument that the Plaintiff failed to produce expert report as required by Pennsylvania law to move forward on the claims presented.   In so ruling, Judge Minora found that this case fell within those types of cases where the alleged negligence and/or the alleged lack of skill and/or the alleged lack of due care averred was so obvious as to be within the realm of a layperson’s normal understanding based upon the ordinary experience and comprehension such that expert testimony is not required.    

As such, the court denied the Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration.  

 

Anyone desiring a copy of this decision may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

Timeliness of Motion for Reconsideration Reviewed by Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County

The propriety of a Motion for Reconsideration beyond a 30 day period, the work product doctrine, and the attorney client privilege were all reviewed by Judge Terrence R. Nealon in his most recent decision handed down in the case of Brogan v. Rosenn, Jenkins and Greenwald, No. 2008 - CV - 6048 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Dec. 5, 2013 Nealon, J.).

Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas

As to the timeliness of a Motion for Reconsideration of a prior Order, Judge Nealon referred to 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5505 of the Judicial Code for the rule that such a motion must be filed within thirty days of the challenged order.  Under the rule, after the thirty day period, the trial court loses its discretion to modify its prior decision and the order can only be opened or vacated upon a showing of intrinsic fraud, lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the first place, a fatal defect in the record, or some other evidence of extraordinary cause justifying intervention by the court.

As the moving party in Brogan had not filed its Motion for Reconsideration within the thirty day time period, the court denied the Motion as untimely.  Judge Nealon went on to review the current status of the work product doctrine and the attorney-client privilege and noted that, even if the court had considered the merits of the Motion, it would have still been denied in any event.

The court provides a nice summary of the interrelationship between the work product doctrine and the attorney-client privilege as applied to discovery disputes and whether documents created by a party's attorney need be produced in discovery.

Anyone wishing to review this decision of Judge Nealon in the Brogan case may click HERE.