Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00531/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00531-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gwendolyn Smith, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Robert N. Hoskyns D.M.D., d/b/a Bella

Dontia Dental Renewal, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-531-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33)

and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition Re Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. 40). For the reasons discussed below, the Motion for Summary Judgment

is granted and the Motion for Summary Disposition is denied as moot. 

BACKGROUND

On February 6, 2007, Plaintiff Gwendolyn Smith was examined by Defendant Dr.

Robert Hoskyns in relation to her request for dental treatment. Defendant proposed a

treatment plan for her with a cost of around $70,000. Plaintiff arranged for this treatment to

be paid for through a loan arranged by her law school’s financial aid office. In March 2007,

however, after a series of unpleasant interactions with Plaintiff, Defendant dismissed Plaintiff

as a patient. He never performed any of the proposed treatment or received any funds from

Plaintiff or from her law school.

Three years later, on March 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this action,

bringing seven claims against Dr. Hoskyns. She has characterized six of these claims as

Case 2:10-cv-00531-GMS Document 41 Filed 05/18/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

breach of contract claims. (Doc. 15 at 3). Her seventh claim is for medical malpractice. 

On October 25, 2010, Defendant filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. During the

bankruptcy proceedings, Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims against Defendant were

discharged. (Doc. 31, Ex. 1 at 4).

On January 4, 2012, Defendant moved for summary judgment in this Court on

Plaintiff’s remaining, medical malpractice claim. (Doc. 33). Although the Court has warned

Plaintiff that her failure to respond to Defendant’s motion “may be deemed consent to the .

. . granting of the motion,” Plaintiff has nonetheless failed to respond to Defendant’s motion.

(Doc. 37).

DISCUSSION

Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable

to the nonmoving party, demonstrates “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). 

Given that the Bankruptcy Court’s has already discharged Plaintiff’s breach of

contract claims, the only claim which remains to be decided is Plaintiff’s claim for medical

malpractice. In the state of Arizona there is a two-year statute of limitations for medical

malpractice claims. A.R.S. § 12-542(1). Plaintiff brought her claim in March 2010 – three

years after Defendant’s alleged medical malpractice. (See Doc. 1). Because Plaintiff’s claim

was not filed within the limitations period, Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

(Doc. 33) is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition

Re Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 40) is denied as moot. The Clerk of

Court is directed to terminate this action.

DATED this 17th day of May, 2012.

Case 2:10-cv-00531-GMS Document 41 Filed 05/18/12 Page 2 of 2