SCRANTON – In accordance with the prior recommendation of a federal magistrate judge, a group of defendants have been dismissed from a wrongful death lawsuit brought against a Shohola nursing home – which alleged that negligent care on its part and that of others led to the death of the plaintiff’s husband.
Jeanne M. Hamill (individually and as Administratrix and Administratrix ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Eugene Hamill, deceased) of Toms River, N.J. first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 10, 2020 versus Twin Cedars Senior Living, LLC and Tamara B. Singer (doing business and also known as “Twin Cedars Senior Living”) of Shohola, John/Jane Doe Attorney and Little Walker Holdings, LLC (doing business and also known as “Twin Cedars Senior Living”), of Brooklyn, N.Y.
(Blaire Realty, LLC of Shohola, Jacob Gutman, Gary Rohinsky and Shohola Realty, LLC of Brooklyn, N.Y. were later added as defendants in the case.)
“Jeanne Hamill brought this case on behalf of her deceased husband on Feb. 10, 2020, and filed an amended complaint on March 17, 2020, which is currently the operative pleading in this case. The amended complaint alleges that Eugene Hamill became a resident of Twin Cedars on July 6, 2018. Mr. Hamill had several serious medical diagnoses, including hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and coronary artery disease, among others, and was required to wear a cardiac life vest,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson stated, in a prior report.
“The complaint further alleges that on Sept. 11, 2018, Twin Cedars made arrangements to discharge Mr. Hamill from the facility. These arrangements allegedly included a three-hour Uber ride from Twin Cedars to Mr. Hamill’s home in Toms River, New Jersey. The complaint further alleges that Defendant Singer was responsible for these arrangements, and that she was told it was an unsafe discharge plan. Nonetheless, Mr. Hamill was discharged on Sept. 11, 2018 and an Uber took him to his residence in Toms River.”
During the trip to Toms River, the suit said Mr. Hamill began vomiting in the Uber, became unresponsive and required an EMS transport to Barnabas Health Community Center where he was intubated, put on a ventilator and placed in the Intensive Care Unit – where he then suffered a stroke and heart attack.
After receiving treatment in the ICU, Mr. Hamill was transferred to a Skilled Nursing Facility, where he remained until he passed away just over a year later on Sept. 26, 2019. His widow, the plaintiff, then brought suit against the defendants, alleging claims of negligence, wrongful death and survival.
UPDATE
After amended versions of the lawsuit were filed, defendants Gutman, Little Walker Holdings, LLC, Rohinsky and Shohola Realty LLC motioned to be dismissed from the case on Feb. 18, 2022.
Carlson also issued a report and recommendation on Aug. 5, 2022, which advised that this motion be granted, however, plaintiff counsel objected to such a move on Aug. 18, 2022, leading the defense to oppose the objections on Sept. 1, 2022.
18 months later, it led U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Karoline Mehalchick to issue a memorandum opinion on March 14, whereby she adopted Carlson’s report and recommendation and granted the requested dismissal of defendants.
“The report concludes that plaintiff’s fraudulent transfer claim fails because the second amended complaint does not meet Rule 9’s particularity requirement. Additionally, the report concludes that, with respect to the individual defendants Gutman and Rohinsky, the ‘threadbare allegations in the second complaint’ do not support ‘the extraordinary remedy of piercing the corporate veil’. Plaintiff makes several objections to the report. First, plaintiff contends there is sufficient evidence to proceed on her fraudulent conveyance claim. Second, plaintiff raises a new argument that defendant Little Walker is not a good faith purchaser for value. Lastly, plaintiff avers that piercing the corporate veil is appropriate in this case,” Mehalchick said.
Mehalchick then presented her rationale as to the claims at issue.
“Plaintiff’s objections as they relate to the sufficiency of her fraudulent conveyance claim will be overruled. First, as the report correctly concludes, the second amended complaint does not state with particularity circumstances constituting fraud. Second, plaintiff has failed to address this conclusion, making no reference to the report or Rule 9 in her objections. Third, and most pertinent here, in making her objections, plaintiff relays new facts not contained in her second amended complaint and new arguments not contained in her brief in opposition to the instant motion to dismiss. These include her assertions regarding misrepresentations in the Agreement of Sales and Singer’s ‘probable continued possession’ of Twin Cedars after the revocation of its operations license. Typically, the ‘interests of judicial economy weigh against allowing a party to raise a new issue in objection to a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation that was not raised before the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, because plaintiff has failed to object specifically to the report’s findings, opting instead to purport novel arguments that could have been previously raised, plaintiff’s objections as they relate to the sufficiency of her fraudulent conveyance claim allegations are overruled,” Mehalchick stated.
“In her objections, plaintiff states, ‘Little Walker has contended throughout these proceedings, that essentially, they are a ‘good faith purchaser for value.’ As noted by moving defendants, ‘plaintiff’s argument that Little Walker is not ‘a good faith purchaser for value’ was immaterial to Judge Carlson’s recommendation, and presents no basis for objection.’ This Court agrees, again noting that plaintiff’s attempts to resort to unpleaded facts and novel arguments at this juncture are inappropriate. Objections that present new arguments and facts instead of responding directly to the Magistrate Judge’s findings will not be considered. Accordingly, plaintiff’s ‘good faith purchaser’ arguments will not now be considered and any objection based thereon is overruled.”
The plaintiff’s argument to pierce the corporate veil fared no better with Mehalchick.
“According to the report, the ‘second amended complaint is completely devoid of any well-pleaded facts which would justify the extraordinary remedy of piercing the corporate veil. There are simply no factual averments which would suggest that the corporate form of Little Walker Holdings, LLC, should be disregarded.’ To pierce the corporate veil under Pennsylvania law, the Court must consider whether there is: ‘Undercapitalization, failure to adhere to corporate formalities, substantial intermingling of corporate and personal affairs and use of the corporate form to perpetuate a fraud,” Mehalchick stated.
“Upon review of the second amended complaint, this Court concurs with the report that plaintiff offers no averments beyond conclusory allegations to support that piercing the corporate veil is appropriate in this case. In her objections, plaintiff fails to cite any allegations from her second amended complaint to suggest otherwise. Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections relating to piercing the corporate veil are overruled.”
Mehalchick concurrently issued a judicial order which adopted Carlson’s report and recommendation, overruled the plaintiff’s objections to the report and granted the motion to dismiss from defendants Gutman, Little Walker Holdings, LLC, Rohinsky and Shohola Realty LLC, thus removing them from the case.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:20-cv-00231
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com