Sarpolis v. Tereshko, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5521
| Decision Date | 17 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5521 |
| Parties | KAREN SARPOLIS, Individually and as Administratrix of the ESTATE OF ANGELA ANASTACIA MILLER, Plaintiffs, v. ALLAN TERESHKO et al, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
KAREN SARPOLIS, Individually and as Administratrix of the
ESTATE OF ANGELA ANASTACIA MILLER, Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLAN TERESHKO et al, Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5521
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
June 17, 2014
Tucker, C. J.
This is a civil RICO action. Plaintiff Karen Sarpolis initiated this action against nine defendants1 for conspiracy to "devalue" and "derail" Plaintiff's settlement in a medical malpractice action in state court. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint asserts four causes of action for conspiracy in violation of Pennsylvania state law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(b)-(d).
Presently before the Court are six motions to dismiss: (1) Defendants Post & Schell, P.C. and Heather Tereshko's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) (collectively "Post & Schell Defendants"); (2) Defendant CHOP Newborn Care's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10); (3) Defendant Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) ("Penn")2; (4) Defendant
Page 2
Pennsylvania Professional Liability Joint Underwriting Association's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) ("JUA"); (5) Defendant Community Health Systems, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21) ("CHSI"); and (6) Defendant Allan Tereshko's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22) ("Judge Tereshko"). Also under consideration are Plaintiff's consolidated Response in Opposition to the above-referenced motions (Doc. 28), the Post & Schell Defendants' Reply (Doc. 31), Penn's Reply (Doc. 36), CHOP Newborn Care's Reply (Doc. 38), and Plaintiff's consolidated Sur-Replies (Doc. 42). Upon consideration of the parties' motions with briefs and exhibits, Defendants'3 motions will be granted for the reasons set forth below.
This case arises from an underlying medical malpractice case Plaintiff Karen Sarpolis ("Plaintiff"), pro se, filed on her own behalf and on behalf of her deceased daughter, Angela Anastacia Miller, on September 22, 2005 against Chestnut Hill Hospital and various medical service providers in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (hereinafter "State Court Action) (First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 21-23.) Plaintiff claims that the alleged medical malpractice resulted from Plaintiff's treatment at Chestnut Hill Hospital on February 8, 2005. (Id.) Plaintiff was represented by counsel during the State Court Action.
The Honorable Jacqueline F. Allen was the presiding judge assigned to the State Court Action. (Id. ¶ 44; see also Post & Schell Defs.' Ex. 1 to Colvin Dec. ["State Court Docket"].)4
Page 3
Between September 22, 2005, the date Plaintiff filed the State Court Action, and May 24, 2007, Post & Schell had no involvement in the State Court Action. (State Court Docket at 18.) On May 24, 2007, Donald N. Camhi, an attorney at Post & Schell, entered his appearance on behalf of one of the certified nurse-midwife defendants who, until that time, had been represented by a different attorney at a different law firm. (Id.) Heather Tereshko, Judge Tereshko's wife and then an attorney at Post & Schell, did not enter an appearance in the State Court Action and there is no indication she had any direct involvement in the State Court Action.5
On October 1, 2008, Judge Allen issued an order for a trial date certain of January 26, 2009 in the State Court Action. (Id. at 35.) On December 23, 2008, Chestnut Hill Hospital, which was not represented by Post & Schell, filed an omnibus motion in limine. (Id. at 37.) The motion was assigned to Judge Allen on December 29, 2008. (Id.) On January 7, 2009, the motion was reassigned to Judge Tereshko. (Id. at 38.) On January 9, 2009, Post & Schell filed four motions in limine, and Plaintiff also filed four motions in limine. (Id. at 38-40.) On January 14, 2009, consistent with the reassignment of the previously filed motion in limine, these other
Page 4
motions in limine were reassigned from Judge Allen to Judge Tereshko (Id. at 43-44.) On January 14, 2009, Judge Tereshko issued an order for the parties to attend a mandatory settlement conference on January 16, 2009 (Id. at 44.) The parties attended a settlement conference on that date.6 On January 23, 2009, Judge Tereshko issued an order which stated the following:
The Court having been advised that the within case has been settled, the case shall be marked "Discontinued" on the Prothonotary's docket and removed from the applicable list and inventory of pending cases….
This case may be restored to the trial list only upon written Order of the Team/Program Leader. This relief shall be requested by formal motion.
It is further Ordered and Decreed that in the following types of cases additional steps must be taken to officially conclude the case: Minor's Compromises, Wrongful Death/Survival Actions (see Pa. R.C.P. 2039, 2064, 2206, Phila. Civ. R. No.2039.1, and Joint General Court Regulation 97_1) and Joinder (see Pa. R. C. P. 2231).
(Id.; see also Post & Schell Defs.' Ex. 2 to Colvin Dec.) According to the docket, there has been no further action in the State Court Action since January 23, 2009. Thus, the State Court Action spanned a little over three years. In that time frame, it would appear that Judge Tereshko's involvement in the case was limited to just sixteen days.
On April 25, 2013, more than four years after the State Court Action was discontinued, Plaintiff filed a "malfeasance complaint" against Judge Tereshko in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. (Post & Schell Defs.' Ex. 3 to Colvin Dec.; Doc. 1.) Judge Tereshko was the only defendant in this original complaint. In the original complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Judge Tereshko engaged in improper conduct in the State Court Action by not disclosing to Plaintiff that his wife worked at Post & Schell. (Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff further alleged that at the settlement
Page 5
conference in advance of trial, Judge Tereshko "suggested a low settlement amount, but no extra conditions" and "threatened very unfavorable terms at trial to disadvantage Plaintiff and coerce her into considering the proposal." (Id. ¶¶6-7.) Plaintiff claimed that she was deceived into agreeing to the discontinuance through the misrepresentation that the case could be easily redocketed if the settlement was not finalized and funded. (Id. ¶8.)
In response to Plaintiff's original complaint, Judge Tereshko filed preliminary objections. Thereafter, on August 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed the present First Amended Complaint, which describes a widespread conspiracy among numerous defendants allegedly designed to "devalue" Plaintiff's claim in the State Court Action. Specifically, Plaintiff now alleges that, in 2004, well before the events giving rise to her claim for medical malpractice even occurred, the University of Pennsylvania sought to gain control of Chestnut Hill Hospital by entering into a partnership with Community Health Systems, Inc. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff alleges that Penn and CHSI operated Chestnut Hill Hospital in a manner that sought to maximize its profits by allegedly minimizing its expenses and evading claims for medical malpractice. (Id. ¶¶ 18-19.) Plaintiff contends that Penn and CHSI evaded medical malpractice claims by allegedly "tampering with evidence, witnesses and judges in the pending cases." Id. Plaintiff further contends in a general allegation that, in the State Court Action, all "Defendants altered documents and tampered with witnesses associated with Plaintiff's case, and arranged for a Judge related to defendants to take over the case, to devalue it." (Id. at ¶ 20.)
Additionally, Plaintiff now claims that "[b]efore [Judge] Tereshko…had any jurisdiction over the subject matter or person of the Plaintiff and without performing any judicial acts, he conspired with Post [&] Schell, JUA, and his wife Heather Tereshko to have the case transferred
Page 6
to his jurisdiction with the intent to obstruct justice and to assist in carrying out the [d]efenses' objectives for disposition of the case." (Id. ¶ 45) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff again asserts that Judge Tereshko did not inform her that his wife worked for Post & Schell, and that his failure to do so represents an impermissible conflict of interest. (Id. ¶¶46-48.) Plaintiff claims that, "much later," when she learned of Judge Tereshko's conflict of interest, she "requested that he recuse himself or that he be removed from the case." (Id. ¶ 54.) Plaintiff avers Judge Tereshko "did not recuse himself," and "did not acknowledge the conflict of interest." (Id. ¶¶55-57.) However, there are no entries on the State Court Docket or exhibits attached to Plaintiff's pleading or briefs which substantiate that such a request was made. On September 20, 2013, the Post & Schell Defendants removed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint to this Court, and the other represented defendants consented. Plaintiff asserts the following claims:
Count I: Claim against all Defendants for "Pennsylvania Civil Conspiracy"
Count II: Claim against Defendants Community Health Systems, Chestnut Hill Healthcare Medical Associates, and Penn under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)
Count III: Claim against Defendants Community Health Systems and Penn under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b)
Count IV: Claim against all Defendants under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) for conspiracy to violate §§ 1962(b) and (c).
A court may dismiss a plaintiff's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) only when it does not state a claim for relief that is "plausible on its face." Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 128 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp., 609 F.3d 239, 262 n.27 (3d Cir. 2010)). All well-pled factual allegations contained in a
Page 7
plaintiff's complaint must be accepted as true and must be interpreted in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Argueta v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 643 F.3d 60, 74 (3d Cir. 2011). A complaint is plausible on its face when its factual allegations allow a court...
To continue reading
Request your trial