Pik v. University of Pennsylvania, 011012 FED3, 11-3260

Docket Nº:11-3260
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:JIRI PIK, Appellant v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10
Judge Panel:Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:January 10, 2012
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

JIRI PIK, Appellant

v.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10

No. 11-3260

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

January 10, 2012

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) December 19, 2011.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-08-cv-05164) District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin.

Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In November 2008, Jiri Pik filed suit against the University of Pennsylvania ("Penn") and other unnamed defendants relating to his experiences as a doctoral candidate in Economics in the academic year beginning in Fall 2003 (including a conflict with one of his professors), his subsequent medical leave from his studies, and the school's ultimate decision not to readmit him to his academic program. Pik brought claims that he described as breach of contract/negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA") violation, civil rights violations, and general constitutional law violations.

Penn filed a motion to dismiss all of the counts of the complaint except certain breach of contract claims. The District Court stayed the case for months to accommodate Pik, who advised the District Court (through an e-mail to Penn's counsel) that he was unable to respond to the motion because he was a "political prisoner . . . imprisoned in a psychiatric hospital [in London]." On Pik's request, the case was stayed again on his discharge from the psychiatric hospital. The District Court granted Pik additional extensions of time to respond to the motion to dismiss on Pik's claims that he was busy moving out of the United Kingdom and (later) busy settling into his new home in Switzerland. After Pik responded to the motion, the District Court dismissed all claims but some of the contract claims and a claim that appeared to be a defamation claim. Shortly thereafter, in October 2010, Penn filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the complaint.

The District Court held a telephone conference with the parties in December 2010. As a result of the conference, during which Pik described how he wanted to amend his complaint, the District Court set a deadline of January 3, 2011, for Pik to file a motion to amend (the District Court...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP