Wilson v. Iesi N.Y. Corp.
| Decision Date | 28 July 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ. 1:04-CV-1271.,Civ. 1:04-CV-1271. |
| Parties | Rhona M. WILSON, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estates of Horace N. Wilson, Deceased; Darron N. Wilson, Deceased; and Shane N. Wilson, Deceased, and Vivia Joseph and Donald St. Patrick Taylor, Co-Administrators of the Estate of Christopher Taylor, deceased, v. IESI N.Y. CORPORATION and Emerald Isle Transport, Inc. d/b/a K & G Hauling and Rhona Wilson, Administratrix of the Estate of Horace Wilson, deceased |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
John E. Kusturiss, Jr., John E. Kusturiss, Jr., P.L.L.C., Media, PA, for Plaintiffs.
John C. Farrell, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Philadelphia, PA, David A. Jaskowiak, Glenside, PA, for Defendants.
Francis W. Worthington, Worthington & Worthington, Jamison, PA, for Cross Claimant.
John T. Pion, Michael F. Nerone, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote A Professional Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendants/Cross Defendant.
Vivia L. Joseph, Cambria Heights, NY, for Plaintiffs/Cross Defendant.
Jonathan D. Weiss, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Philadelphia, PA.
Anthony J. Piazza, Jr., Murphy, Piazza & Genello, Scranton, PA.
The complaint in this case was filed on June 10, 2004. The case is a wrongful death, survival and negligence action arising from a truck and automobile collision resulting in fatalities that occurred in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on July 18, 2003.
The plaintiff in the original complaint is Rhona M. Wilson, individually and as the administratrix of the estates of Horace N. Wilson, Darren N. Wilson and Shane N. Wilson. Horace N. Wilson was the plaintiff's husband. Darren N. Wilson and Shane N. Wilson were her sons. The defendants are IESI N.Y. Corporation and Emerald Isle Transport, Inc. Both defendants are alleged to be registered interstate federal motor carriers. The truck that collided with the Wilsons' automobile is alleged to have been owned or leased by defendant Emerald and driven by Merdado F. Jama. It is alleged in the complaint that Emerald was engaged in the hauling of municipal solid waste pursuant to an agreement with IESI, and more specifically that Emerald picked up solid waste for hauling at transfer stations owned and operated by IESI and hauled the waste to solid waste landfills designated by IESI.
The complaint contains wrongful death claims on behalf on the estates of Horace N. Wilson (Count I), Darren N. Wilson (Count II) and Shane N. Wilson (Count III); survival claims on behalf of the three estates (Counts IV, V and VI); and negligence, loss of consortium and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims of plaintiff Rhona M. Wilson (Counts VII, VIII and IX).
On July 13, 2004, defendant IESI N.Y. Corp. answered the complaint and filed a four count cross-claim against defendant Emerald Isle. By an Order dated January 25, 2005, counts III and IV of IESI's cross-claim against Emerald Isle were stricken.
On August 16, 2004, defendant Emerald Isle filed an answer to the complaint and a counterclaim against plaintiff Wilson individually and as administratrix of the estate of Horace Wilson.
On October 18, 2004, defendant IESI filed a motion for summary judgment, and on November 17, 2004, the plaintiff filed a cross motion for summary judgment against defendant IESI. By a Memorandum and Order dated January 25, 2005, the court denied defendant IESI's motion for summary judgment. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of defendant IESI's vicarious liability if negligence on the part of the driver of the truck is established. The court held as a matter of law that defendant IESI is deemed to be the statutory employer and lessee of defendant Emerald Isle and its driver pursuant to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Defendant IESI filed a motion for the court to certify the January 25, 2005 order as an interlocutory appealable order. By an Order dated February 18, 2005, the court granted that motion. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied IESI's petition for permission to appeal.
On April 29, 2005, Vivia Joseph and Donald St. Patrick Taylor, co-administrators of the estate of Christopher Taylor, filed an interpleader complaint against IESI, Emerald Isle and Rhona Wilson in her capacity as the administratrix of the Estate of Horace Wilson. Christopher Taylor was a passenger in the Wilson vehicle and was killed in the collision. Count I of the Taylor complaint is a wrongful death claim and Count II is a survival claim.
Defendant IESI filed an answer to the Taylor complaint and cross-claims against Emerald Isle and Rhona Wilson in her capacity as administratrix of the Estate of Horace Wilson. Defendant Emerald Isle filed an answer to the Taylor complaint and a cross-claim against Rhona Wilson in her capacity as the administratrix of the Estate of Horace Wilson. Rhona Wilson in her capacity as administratrix of the Estate of Horace Wilson filed an answer to the Taylor complaint and cross-claims against IESI and Emerald Isle.
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The case is scheduled for a jury trial beginning on September 18, 2006.
On May 15, 2006, defendant IESI filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's January 25, 2005 Order denying its motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to plaintiff Wilson on the issue of IESI's vicarious liability for any negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. On May 15, 2006, defendant IESI also filed a brief in support of its motion for reconsideration and a separate motion for summary judgment on the Taylor claims. Defendant IESI is seeking to have the court reconsider its decision that IESI is deemed to be the statutory employer and lessee of defendant Emerald Isle and its driver pursuant to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Defendant IESI contends that it was not a lessee of Emerald Isle, that Emerald Isle was an independent contractor, and that, therefore, it is not vicariously liable for any negligence on the part of Emerald Isle or its driver. Defendant IESI is seeking summary judgment in its favor on the basis that it is not vicariously liable for any negligence on the part of Emerald Isle or its driver.
Plaintiff Wilson filed a motion to deny defendant IESI's motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, for an enlargement of time to respond to the motion for reconsideration. The Taylor plaintiffs filed a motion to strike defendant IESI's motion for reconsideration and motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for an enlargement of time to respond to those motions. By an Order dated. May 23, 2006, the plaintiffs' motions were granted in part and denied in part. The plaintiffs were granted an enlargement of time until June 25, 2006 to respond to defendant IESI's motions, but the plaintiffs' motions were otherwise denied.
Defendant IESI's motion for reconsideration and motion for summary judgment have been briefed and will be considered in this memorandum and order.
We will first consider defendant IESI' motion for reconsideration of the Order of January 25, 2005.
"The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985). A district court may grant a party's motion for reconsideration when there exists: "(1) the development of an intervening change in the law, (2) the emergence of new evidence not previously available, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent a manifest injustice." Cohen v. Austin, 869 F.Supp. 320, 321 (E.D.Pa.1994). If there is no new evidence or no clear error of law, the motion should be denied. Clifford v. Jacobs, 739 F.Supp. 957, 958-59 (M.D.Pa. 1990). Mere disagreement with the court does not translate into a clear error of law. Petruzzi's, Inc. v. Darling-Delaware Co., Inc., 983 F.Supp. 595, 611 (M.D.Pa.1996). "A motion for reconsideration is not a tool to relitigate and reargue issues which have already been considered and disposed of by the court." Id. "Nor is it to be used to put forth additional arguments which could have been made but which the party neglected to make before judgment". Waye v. First Citizen's Nat'l Bank, 846 F.Supp. 310, 314 (M.D.Pa.1994), aff'd, 31 F.3d 1175 (3d Cir.1994). In the interest of finality, courts should grant motions for reconsideration sparingly. Rottmund v. Continental Assurance Co., 813 F.Supp. 1104, 1107 (E.D.Pa.1992).
Because we conclude that we erred in holding that defendant IESI is the statutory employer and lessee of defendant Emerald Isle and its driver pursuant to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, we will grant IESI's motion for reconsideration and we will reconsider the issue of whether IESI is vicariously liable for any negligence on the part of the truck driver. We will reconsider that issue in the context of defendant IESI's request for summary judgment.
Defendant IESI's filed a motion seeking summary judgment against the Taylor plaintiffs. Defendant IESI also seeks summary judgment against plaintiff Wilson as part of its motion for reconsideration. Since the issues are the same with regard to both plaintiffs, we will consider defendant IESI' requests for summary judgment against plaintiff Wilson and the Taylor plaintiffs at the same time.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Raymond v. Mid-Bronx Haulage Corp.
...exemption, see, e.g., Interstate Commerce Com. v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 529 F. Supp. 287 (N.D. Ala. 1981); Wilson v. Iesi NY Corp., 444 F. Supp. 2d 298 (M.D. Pa. 2006); Alice v. GCS, Inc., No. 05-c-50132, 2006 WL 2644958, (N.D. Ill.Sept. 14, 2006); Charlton v. Republic Servs. of Fla......
-
Eddie L. Courtney, Jr. & Kreilkamp Trucking, Inc. v. Ivanov, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-227
...v. Braden Drilling, LLC, No. 3:11-cv-2342, 2014 WL 4792429, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 24, 2014) (citing Wilson v. IESI N.Y. Corp., 444 F. Supp. 2d 298, 313 (M.D. Pa. 2006) ("a party is generally not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor")). Nevertheless, the Restatement (Second......
-
Williams v. Braden Drilling, LLC
...men were in an employment relationship with East Resources, and acting within the scope of their employment. Wilson v. IESI N.Y. Corp., 444 F. Supp. 2d 298, 313 (M.D. Pa. 2006) (quoting Drexel v. Union Prescription Ctrs., Inc., 582 F.2d 781, 785 (3d Cir.1978)). The men who Williams alleges ......
-
New Prime, Inc. v. Brandon Balchune Constr., Inc., 3:14-CR-2410
...to control with respect to his physical conduct in the performance of the services for which he was engaged." Wilson v. IESI N.Y. Corp., 444 F. Supp. 2d 298, 313-14 (M.D. Pa. 2006) (citing Green v. Independent Oil, 201 A.2d 207, 210 (Pa. 1964)). As is the case with partnerships, the determi......