Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02058/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02058-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1402 Medical Malpractice

---

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

1

Plaintiff’s counsel is advised to review the Local Rules of this Court. More specifically,

counsel shall pay particular attention to the filing requirements pursuant to LRCiv 7.1. Failure

to comply with the local rules will result in the Court striking any documents not in compliance

with the Rules. 

 WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ned Morris, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

United States of America, et al., 

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-2058-PHX-SMM

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Reinstate the civil action filed by Plaintiff

against Defendant Peter N. Giovan, M.D. (“Dr. Giovan”) (Doc.20).1

 Plaintiff requests that his

case be reinstated because his state law claims have been barred in state court by the two year

statute of limitations. More specifically, Plaintiff requests that this Court “accept pendent

jurisdiction over its state law claims against Dr. Giovan and reinstate his cause of action.”

BACKGROUND

On August 25, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging medical malpractice under the

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C §§ 1346, 2671 et seq. Plaintiff sought money

damages for personal injury allegedly caused by one or more of the following Defendants:

Phoenix Indian Medical Center, its employees, agents and ostensible agents, Peter N. Giovan,

Case 2:06-cv-02058-SMM Document 24 Filed 03/27/08 Page 1 of 5
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 -

M.D., or his medical practice. 

Plaintiff alleges that on or about March 7, 2003, he had a surgical repair of his left

anterior cruciate ligament performed by Dr. Giovan at Phoenix Indian Medical Center. Plaintiff

contends that he developed an infection as a result of the surgery and breaches of the standard

of care by Dr. Giovan, Phoenix Indian Medical Center, and/or its employees, agents and

ostensible agents.

On March 7, 2003 Plaintiff underwent orthopedic surgery performed by Defendant Dr.

Giovan at Pima Indian Medical Center. On September 21, 2004, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the

Superior Court of Arizona for Maricopa County, alleging that he was injured as a result of the

March 7, 2003, surgery. Thereafter, on August 25, 2006, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this

Court, naming the United States of America, Pima Indian Medical Center, and Peter N. Giovan,

M.D., as defendants liable for the alleged injuries that occurred as a result of the March 7, 2003,

surgery. On November 3, 2006, Assistant U.S. Attorney Cole Hernandez wrote to Mr. Lewin,

confirming an extension to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint until December

6, 2006, and advising that, by that time, he should know whether Dr. Giovan was a government

employee or an independent contractor. Accordingly, on December 6, 2006, Assistant U.S.

Attorney Cole Hernandez submitted a memorandum to Attorney Lewin specifically indicating

that Dr. Giovan was not a U.S. employee but, rather, an independent contractor under a

nonpersonal services contract between Dr. Giovan’s employer, Medical Professionals of

Arizona and Pima Indian Medical Center.

On January 11, 2007, Defendant United States of America filed a Motion to Dismiss

Phoenix Indian Medical Center and a Motion for More Definite Statement in this Court. On

March 1, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Second Complaint in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa

County, alleging injuries as a result of alleged negligence by Dr. Giovan during the March 2003,

surgery. On March 14, 2007 Attorney Cagnetto emailed Attorney Lewin indicating that the

case would likely proceed in Federal Court and that conversations were ongoing with Assistant

Case 2:06-cv-02058-SMM Document 24 Filed 03/27/08 Page 2 of 5
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

On April 2, 2007, Waiver of Service forms were sent by Ms. Bittner, assistant to

Attorney Lewin, to Attorney Cagnetto for both the Federal and State Court actions pending the

decision as to the forum in which the litigation would proceed.

- 3 -

U.S. Attorney Hernandez. The e-mail also referenced the best way to serve Dr. Giovan, who

was never properly served in the Federal Court lawsuit.2

 On April 9, 2007, this Court granted

the Motion to Dismiss Phoenix Indian Medical Center from the lawsuit and granted the Motion

for a More Definite Statement, ordering Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by April 20,

2007. This Court specifically ordered Plaintiff to identify the government employees who

allegedly breached the standard of care and to identify the negligent acts or omissions that

constituted the breach.

On April 9, 2007, Ms. Bittner, assistant to Attorney Lewin, emailed Attorney Cagnetto

attaching a copy of the Federal Court’s minute entry and advising that Plaintiff prefers to

proceed in state court. Shortly thereafter, on April 19, 2007, Plaintiff filed a First Amended

Complaint in Federal Court deleting Phoenix Indian Medical Center as a named defendant but

failing to identify any employee of the government whose acts or omissions were alleged to be

in breach of the standard of care. Consequently, on May 22, 2007, this Court granted the

Motion for a More Definite Statement and ordered Plaintiff to file a Second Amended

Complaint no later than June 4, 2007. 

It was then agreed on May 22, 2007, that the case would proceed in state court; therefore,

confirmation was sent that the Waiver of Service for the state court action would be signed. On

May 29, 2007, the Waiver of Service for Dr. Giovan was signed and sent to Attorney Lewin,

and on May 31, 2007, Attorney Lewin filed the Notice of Filing Waiver of Service of

Summons. On June 18, 2007, an Answer was filed in State Court on behalf of Dr. Giovan.

Finally, on October 12, 2007, this Court dismissed the case in federal court for Plaintiff’s failure

to file the court-ordered Second Amended Complaint by June 4, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02058-SMM Document 24 Filed 03/27/08 Page 3 of 5
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 - 4 -

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests that this Court reinstate an action in federal court based on the fact that

the state court claims were dismissed because of Plaintiff’s failure to file his action within the

applicable Statute of Limitations. Plaintiff contends that the Court should “accept pendent

jurisdiction because otherwise Plaintiff will be unfairly denied a forum to address his claim

against Dr. Giovan.” After careful consideration of the record in this 2006 case, the Court finds

that Plaintiff had ample time and opportunity to ensure a proper forum would be available for

Plaintiff’s claims to be heard. However, instead of heeding this Court’s orders and exhausting

all of its options, Plaintiff chose to risk dismissal in federal court by failing to comply with this

Court’s orders and by pursuing his claims solely in state court. Consequently, Dr. Giovan has

already had to defend his case in state court, albeit only to the point of summary judgment,

based strictly on the voluntary decision of the Plaintiff. To permit Plaintiff to reinstate his

(state) cause(s) of action at this point in time would essentially reward him for noncompliance

with court orders and would promote dilatory actions on the part of plaintiffs that result in unfair

prejudice to defendants in general. 

Moreover, the basis for which Plaintiff seeks reinstatement of his federal action is

pendent jurisdiction. However, according to Defendant Dr. Giovan, Plaintiff’s claims are not

pendent claims, and because they were at no point properly before this court, they should not

be reinstated. Defendant’s point is well taken.

Pendent jurisdiction allows a federal court to retain jurisdiction over a state claim

whenever a state claim emerges from the same facts as a properly heard federal question claim.

The main reason for pendent jurisdiction is judicial economy so that a litigant is not required

to litigate essentially the same claims in two distinct and separate forums. Rather, when a proper

and viable federal question is before a federal court and a state court issue emerges from the

same set of facts, the federal court is permitted to consider the state court claim as well as the

federal claim. United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966).

Case 2:06-cv-02058-SMM Document 24 Filed 03/27/08 Page 4 of 5
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

3

 Plaintiff was aware as of December 6, 2006, that Dr. Giovan was not a federal

government employee

4

 Dr. Giovan was never properly served in the federal court lawsuit. Therefore, this court

does not have personal jurisdiction over Dr. Giovan at this time.

- 5 -

In the instant case, Plaintiff’s only allegation of negligence in the federal case derived

solely from the allegations as to Dr. Giovan3

. On two occasions this Court specifically ordered

Plaintiff to identify any federal government employees whose actions were alleged to be in

breach of the standard of care. Both times, Plaintiff failed to comply with this Court’s order,

failing to identify the federal government employees who allegedly breached the standard of

care. Plaintiff further failed to comply with this Court’s order by failing to identify the alleged

negligent acts or omissions that constituted the breach and by failing to identify when the

alleged negligent acts or omissions occurred, as directed by this Court’s orders. Failing to do

so left Plaintiff without any viable federal claims to present to the Court. Thus, without a proper

federal question claim presented to the Court, this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and

the lawsuit was properly dismissed.4

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate the civil action

filed by Plaintiff against Defendant Peter N. Giovan, M.D. (Doc.20).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall remain closed. 

DATED this 27th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02058-SMM Document 24 Filed 03/27/08 Page 5 of 5