Nose v. Rementer
Citation | 610 F. Supp. 191 |
Decision Date | 04 June 1985 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 84-645-JLL. |
Parties | George C. NOSE, Plaintiff, v. Anthony S. REMENTER, Steven R. Rementer and Mary Rementer, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
William S. Gee of Theisen, Lank, Mulford & Goldberg, P.A., Wilmington, Del., for plaintiff.
Wayne N. Elliott and Michael P. Kelly of Prickett, Jones, Elliott, Kristol & Schnee, Wilmington, Del., for defendants.
The parties to this personal injury action have stipulated to the following facts. (See Docket Item "D.I." 19 at 3; D.I. 20 at 3.) On May 30, 1981, a motor vehicle driven by the plaintiff collided with a motor vehicle driven by defendant Anthony S. Rementer approximately one mile north of Rehoboth, Delaware. The plaintiff claims to have suffered physical injuries as a direct result of that accident, and, to recover for his injuries, he filed suit on May 23, 1984, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, invoking the jurisdiction of the Federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. (D.I. 1A.) That court transferred the action to this Court by an order dated October 18, 1984. (D.I. 7.) The matter is now before this Court on the defendants' motion for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. (D.I. 17.)
Weber v. McDonald's System of Europe, Inc., C.A. No. 84-442-WKS, slip op. at 7 (Stapleton, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation) (citations omitted); cf. Martin v. Stokes, 623 F.2d 469, 472 (6th Cir.1980). Therefore the law applicable to this diversity suit is the law of Delaware. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). No choice of laws question is posed because the accident underlying the suit took place in Delaware.
The relevant statute of limitations is 10 Del.C. § 8119, which reads, in relevant part, "no action for the recovery of damages upon a claim for alleged personal injuries shall be brought after the expiration of 2 years from the date upon which it is claimed that such alleged injuries were sustained ...." The undisputed facts reveal that suit was not filed in connection with the May 1981 accident until May 23, 1984. The only argument3 the plaintiff has advanced to stave off summary judgment is that "plaintiff's failure to file within two years was the result of his prior attorney's unfamiliarity with this particular statute, and ... plaintiff should not be penalized for a mistake not of his own making." (D.I. 20 at 5.) But, as the defendants point out (D.I. 21 at 6), Delaware law has by long tradition given no weight to considerations of hardship or "fair play" in the application of statutes of limitations. See, e.g., Rash v. C. & M. Corp., 59 Del. 257, 218 A.2d 670, 672 (1966); Lewis v. Pawnee Bill's Wild West Co., 6 Pennewill 316, 66 A. 471, 474 (1907); Bovay v. H.M. Byllesby & Co., 27 Del.Ch. 33, 29 A.2d 801, 804 (1943). The facts are undisputed, the law is simple, and the court's obligation is clear. The defendants' motion for summary judgment must be granted. An order to that effect will be entered.
1 Section 1631 reads:
Transfer to cure want of jurisdiction. Whenever a civil action is filed in a court as defined in section 610 of this title or an appeal, including a petition for review of administrative action, is noticed for or filed with such a court and that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court in which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Franco v. Mabe Trucking Co.
...Ctr. , 749 F. Supp. 102, 105 (D.N.J. 1990) ; Levy v. Pyramid Co. of Ithaca , 687 F. Supp. 48, 51 (N.D.N.Y. 1988) ; Nose v. Rementer , 610 F. Supp. 191, 192 n.1 (D. Del. 1985) ; c.f. Piazza v. Upjohn Co. , 570 F. Supp. 5, 8 (M.D. La. 1983) (concluding that § 1631 applied to a transfer when a......
-
Franco v. Mabe Trucking Co.
...Ctr. , 749 F. Supp. 102, 105 (D.N.J. 1990) ; Levy v. Pyramid Co. of Ithaca , 687 F. Supp. 48, 51 (N.D.N.Y. 1988) ; Nose v. Rementer , 610 F. Supp. 191, 192 n.1 (D. Del. 1985) ; c.f. Piazza v. Upjohn Co. , 570 F. Supp. 5, 8 (M.D. La. 1983) (concluding that § 1631 authorized a transfer when a......
-
Carr v. Town of Dewey Beach
...Ins. Co., 644 F.Supp. 967, 972 (D.Del.1986). Courts may not extend the limitation period out of notions of fair play. Nose v. Rementer, 610 F.Supp. 191, 193 (D.Del.1985). Some of the Delaware cases prior to the state Supreme Court's establishment of a cause of action for continuous negligen......
-
Reed v. Fina Oil & Chemical Co.
...the court to transfer the case without first deciding the threshold question of subject matter jurisdiction. See Nose v. Rementer, 610 F.Supp. 191, 192 n. 1 (D.Del.1985) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1631 has the specific legislative intent to allow a court to transfer a case where it lacks sub......