PHILADELPHIA – Discovery disputes have taken place in the case of a local woman who claimed she suffered extensive knee and back injuries, when she slipped and fell on a section of walkway in the lot of a UPS building in Philadelphia last year.
Rhonda Bingham initially filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Dec. 27, 2021 versus United Parcel Service, Inc. Both parties are of Philadelphia.
“On Jan. 15, 2021, shortly after midnight, plaintiff Rhonda Bingham was leaving the premises, having concluded her shift working for Allied Universal as a security guard, and was attempting to exit the above referenced premises by walking on the sidewalk in the defendant’s lot near the west gate of the premises, when she was caused to trip, stumble and fall on an unexpected, unlit, and/or camouflaged change in elevation on the designated walkway, resulting in serious injury,” the suit said.
“On the aforesaid date, the defendant, by and through its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, owned, managed, possessed, controlled, maintained and supervised the premises where the incident hereinafter described occurred, and the defendant knew, and/or should have known, of the existence of the hazardous condition of the premises described herein.”
According to the plaintiff, defendant UPS “knew, and/or had reason to know, that business invitee pedestrians would be walking on designated sidewalks/walkways of the walking surface of the said premises.”
“Plaintiff Rhonda Bingham suffered severe and permanent injuries, including but not limited to: Right knee medial meniscus tear, right knee lateral meniscus tear; right knee sprain; right knee contusion; right knee pain; sprain of lumbar ligaments; low back pain and injury; exacerbation and aggravation of bilateral knee osteoarthritis which may require total knee replacement; nervous shock and aggravation and/or exacerbation of all known and unknown preexisting medical conditions,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff Rhonda Bingham suffered internal injuries of an unknown nature; she suffered severe aches pains, mental anxiety and anguish, and a severe shock to her entire nervous system, and other injuries the full extent of which are not yet known. She was caused to undergo medical treatment due to these injuries, aggravations and/or exacerbations. She has in the past and will in the future undergo severe pain and suffering and will in the future be unable to attend to her usual duties and occupations, all to her great financial detriment and loss. Plaintiff Rhonda Bingham believes and therefore avers that her injuries are permanent in nature.”
After removing the case to federal court on Feb. 4, UPS answered the complaint on Feb. 11 and argued that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
“Answering defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 19 of the complaint as though the same were set forth at length herein. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Answering defendant did not owe or breach a duty owed to plaintiff. No conduct or omission on the part of answering defendant caused or contributed to plaintiff’s alleged injuries or damages,” per the answer, in part.
“The nature, existence, origin, causation, amount or extent of damages and losses claimed by plaintiff are in dispute and answering defendant demands proof of same by plaintiff as required under law. Plaintiff’s alleged injuries or damages were the result of intervening, superseding acts of negligence of a person or persons outside the control of answering defendant. Plaintiff’s claims are barred or otherwise limited by the application of the doctrine of assumption of the risk, express or implied. Plaintiff’s alleged injuries or damages are barred, or should be reduced, by the doctrine of comparative negligence, specifically as set forth in Pennsylvania’s comparative negligence statute.”
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Wendy Beetlestone remanded the case to its court of origin on March 8, finding a lack of subject matter jurisdiction at hand and that the amount in requested damages did not meet the threshold required for federal court.
“This slip and fall case was removed from state court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. A defendant removing a case on diversity grounds must demonstrate that the opposing parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,” Beetlestone said.
“Federal district courts have an ‘independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it,’ and therefore may remand a case sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In estimating the amount in controversy, ‘doubts must be resolved in favor of remand.’ Because plaintiff’s complaint does not plausibly suggest that an amount greater than $75,000 is in dispute, this action will be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
UPDATE
On Aug. 30, plaintiff counsel filed a motion to compel answers to discovery inquiries and production of documents from the defense. Defense counsel responded with an answer to that motion on Sept. 22.
“By way of further response, answers to any outstanding discovery are being prepared and verified. It is expected that such answers will be served shortly. However, respondent cannot agree to the form of order proposed by plaintiff,” the answer stated, in part.
In an accompanying memorandum, defense counsel explained that such a motion on the plaintiff’s behalf was filed prematurely.
“Answers to any outstanding discovery are being prepared and verified. It is expected that such answers will be served shortly to hopefully obviate the need for a hearing on the motion. However, respondent cannot agree to the form of order proposed by plaintiff. The form of order is inappropriate to the extent that is call for answers ‘without objection’ and for respondent to be ‘subject to sanctions,’ according to the defense’s answer.
“Discovery in this matter is in the very early stages and plaintiff has not made a showing of any prejudice at this juncture. The rules of discovery allow for basic notions of fairness and justice. There is no basis to strike any objections that may be asserted by respondent, particularly those that would apply to privileged matters. Nor is there any basis for sanctions to be imposed. In summary, for all the reasons set forth above, the motion of plaintiff to compel discovery should be denied. Alternatively, the proposed order should be amended to strike the terms referring to striking objections and/or sanctions.”
For a lone count of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000, plus costs.
The plaintiff is represented by Jeffrey R. Lessin of Jeffrey R. Lessin & Associates, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by John P. Lock of Lock Gordon Law Group, in Newtown Square.
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 211201792
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-00470
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com