eNotes: Liability – April 2023 – Federal

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Federal Case Summaries

Staretz v. Walmart Stores East, LP
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
No. 3:22-CV-00967

Decided: March 3, 2023

Action dismissed for insufficient service of process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Background

Plaintiff filed suit against Walmart for personal injuries allegedly sustained in an incident that purportedly occurred on July 19, 2019. Pursuant to the applicable two (2) year statute of limitations period, Plaintiff was required to initiate this action by July 19, 2021. Plaintiff eventually initiated this action via Writ on July 1, 2021, and attempted service on July 7, 2021. Although Plaintiff used a proper method of service, it was ineffective because the postal receipt is illegible, and there is no other information on the receipts which would make it possible for the Court to determine if the signatory was an “authorized agent” of any Defendant, as required by Pennsylvania law.

Beyond this, the attempted service by Plaintiff was made on the incorrect address of the Defendant. The address purportedly where service was made by Plaintiff was different from the address identified on the Writ of Summons. Additionally, Plaintiff failed to file the return of service as required by Pennsylvania law.

Holding

The Court found that Plaintiff’s action was time-barred as a result of the insufficient service of process. Plaintiff failed to exhibit a good faith effort to effectuate service of process within the required timeframe and, therefore, Plaintiff failed to preserve the statute of limitations. The Court was not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that service was merely a technical defect.

TT&H Attorneys Ryan Blazure and Danielle Vols represented Walmart in the Staretz case. Questions about this case can be directed to Danielle at (570) 825-6890 or dvols@tthlaw.com.

Piazza v. Young
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
No. 4:19-CV-00180

Decided: February 14, 2023

Continuation of discovery stay is appropriate as Defendants’ criminal proceedings are ongoing and, as such, Defendants’ ability to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege would likely frustrate the purpose of discovery until the resolution of the criminal proceedings.

Background

Plaintiff’s decedent, Timothy Piazza, died due to complications associated with injuries he sustained at a “bid acceptance night” held by the Alpha Upsilon Chapter of the Beta Theta Pi fraternity. Thereafter, for their roles in Timothy Piazza’s death, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania brought criminal charges against Defendants Young, Casey and other members of Beta Theta Pi in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County. Eighteen months later, Timothy Piazza’s parents, James and Evelyn Piazza, initiated a wrongful death suit, naming as Defendants 28 individual members of the fraternity, including Defendants Young and Casey, among others. Due to the ongoing criminal proceedings, Young and Casey filed a Motion to stay discovery, which the Court granted on August 27, 2019.

Although three and a half years had transpired since the Court stayed discovery as to Defendants Young and Casey, there was little progress in their respective criminal cases. Responding to this delay, the Piazzas filed a Motion to lift the discovery stay. The Court analyzed the factors to consider in lifting the stay: (1) the extent to which the issues in the civil and criminal cases overlap; (2) the status of the criminal proceedings, including whether any defendants have been indicted; (3) plaintiff’s interests in expeditious civil proceedings weighed alongside the prejudice to the plaintiff caused by the delay; (4) the burden on the defendants; (5) the interests of the court; and (6) the public interest.

Plaintiffs primarily argued factor 3, the prejudice to Plaintiffs caused by the indefinite nature of the criminal proceedings. The Court’s contrasted Plaintiffs’ argument with factor 5 of the analysis, the interests of the Court. In evaluating both factors, the Court acknowledged Plaintiffs’ frustration in their lack of ability to move their case by completing even the most basic of written discovery. However, the Court focused on the Defendants’ Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and noted that, if the discovery stay was lifted, Plaintiffs’ purpose in conducting discovery would likely still be thwarted by the anticipated assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege, thus rendering Plaintiffs’ discovery attempts futile. The Court further noted that the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege would likely result in numerous discovery disputes and, therefore, would not be in the best interests of the Court and judicial economy. Accordingly, the Court held that the discovery stay should remain in effect until resolution of the criminal proceedings so that the parties could engage in meaningful discovery thereafter where the Defendants would no longer be able to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Holding

Discovery stay to remain in effect pending the resolution of the criminal proceedings as Defendants’ Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination remained in effect and the anticipated assertion of the privilege would likely frustrate the purpose of discovery in the civil action until the criminal proceedings resolved.

Questions about this case can be directed to Jonathan Danko at (717) 441-3957 or jdanko@tthlaw.com.