Oikarinen v. Alexian Brothers
| Decision Date | 03 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | 14967.,No. 14966,14966 |
| Citation | 342 F.2d 155 |
| Parties | Paul OIKARINEN, Appellant, v. ALEXIAN BROTHERS, a Corporation of the State of New Jersey. Paul OIKARINEN, Appellant, v. Joseph A. PICCOLELLA. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Barry M. Epstein, Reibel, Isaac & Tannenbaum, Elizabeth, N. J. (Stanley Tannenbaum, Elizabeth, N. J., of counsel, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Daniel K. Van Dorn, Mead, Gleeson, Hansen & Pantages, Newark, N. J., for Alexian Bros., appellee.
No counsel and no brief for Joseph A. Piccolella, appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, FORMAN and GANEY, Circuit Judges.
Both these suits are based on diversity of citizenship. In the first, No. 14966, the defendant is a New Jersey non profit corporation organized exclusively for hospital purposes. The claim against it is for alleged negligence in connection with personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while a patient in defendant's hospital.
Admittedly the provisions of New Jersey Statute 2A:53A-7, 8, N.J.S.A. limiting liability for negligence to $10,000 in the type of action before us, applies to the defendant. It is further necessarily conceded in this court that as a consequence, the matter in controversy does not exceed "the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs." 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a) and therefore that the district court did not have jurisdiction of the cause.
In that situation appellant, in the district court, moved to add the corporate defendant in his first suit as a party defendant in No. 14967. In the latter, it is alleged that Joseph A. Piccolella the defendant, was employed at the hospital while plaintiff was there as a patient and that plaintiff injured himself "by reason of the negligence of the defendant." In denying this motion Judge Shaw in the district court correctly held that
The summary judgment in the district court in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff in No. 14966 will be affirmed.
The order of the district court in No. 14967 denying the motion of plaintiff to add Alexian Brothers, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, as a party defendant in this cause will be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holzsager v. Valley Hospital
...by the statute, and, relying on Deutsch v. Hewes Street Realty Corp., 359 F.2d 96, 100 (2d Cir. 1966) (dictum), Oikarinen v. Alexian Brothers, 342 F.2d 155, 155 (3d Cir. 1965), and Trail v. Green, 206 F.Supp. 896, 900-01 (D.N.J.1962), concluded that the court lacked subject matter jurisdict......
-
Rogers v. Provident Hospital, 65 C 446.
...to show that its insurance does not cover loss in excess of $10,000, jurisdiction could not be based on § 1331. Cf. Oikarinen v. Alexian Bros., 342 F.2d 155 (3rd Cir. 1965). This factor would not affect jurisdiction under § 1343, where no jurisdictional amount is required. Hague v. C.I.O., ......
-
In re Passodelis
...Thompson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 1998 WL 695992 at *2 (E.D.Pa. 1998) (citing Francis); Oikarinen v. Alexian Brothers, 342 F.2d 155, 155 (3rd Cir. 1965) (whether federal diversity jurisdiction is satisfied will not be impacted by consolidation of actions), and (c) "a proceeding'......
-
Sanok v. Grimes
...Wash., 366 F.2d 678 (9th Cir.), cert. den. 375 U.S. 986, 84 S.Ct. 519, 11 L.Ed.2d 473 (1966) (sovereign immunity); Oikarinen v. Alexian Bros., 342 F.2d 155 (3rd Cir.1965) (jurisdictional amount); Truncale v. Univ. Pictures Co., 82 F.Supp. 576 (S.D.N.Y.1949) (abatement); General Houses v. Re......