Source: http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20050824_0000362.DNJ.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-01-20 22:27:41
Document Index: 796189424

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1376', '§ 1331', '§ 1367', '§ 1395', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

| SANDERS v. TRINITAS HOSPITAL
SANDERS v. TRINITAS HOSPITAL
SYLVESTER SANDERS, Administrator ad prosequendum of the ESTATE OF DARLENE SANDERS, a/k/a DEBBIE PATTERSON, individually, as father of Darlene Sanders and on behalf of the heirs of the Estate; ALMISSA SANDERS, individually and in her capacity as the daughter of Darlene Sanders; DYESHA CRINARTY, individually and in her capacity as the daughter of Darlene Sanders; and ALMIN SANDERS, individually and in his capacity as the son of Darlene Sanders, Plaintiffs,
TRINITAS HOSPITAL, Jersey and Williamsburg Campuses; THE CITY OF ELIZABETH; THE CITY OF ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE CITY OF ELIZABETH JAIL; JAMES COSGROVE, individually and under color of State law in his capacity as Police Director for the City of Elizabeth; JOHN SIMON, individually and under color of State law in his capacity as Chief of Police for the City of Elizabeth Police Department; LT. SOFIANKOS, individually and under color of State law in his capacity as Desk Supervisor on May 16, 2000 for the City of Elizabeth Police Department; JOHN and JANE ROES, officers, supervisors, agents, directors, and/or managers employed by the City of Elizabeth Police Department and Jail; JOHN and JANE SMITHS or any other persons, individuals, officers, supervisors, agents, employees and/or entities who are/were responsible for inmate healthcare at Trinitas Hospital, Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on motions by Defendant
Police Chief John Simon, the City of Elizabeth Police Department,
the City of Elizabeth Jail, James Cosgrove and Lt. Sofiankos
(collectively "City Defendants") for Reconsideration pursuant to
Local Rule 7.1(g) concerning the Court's ruling on October 25,
2004, which denied City Defendants' Qualified Immunity Defense;
denied City Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on
Plaintiffs' § 1983 and Constitutional Claims; granted City
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Punitive
Damages Claim; granted Defendant Trinitas' Motion for Summary
Judgment on Plaintiffs' EMTALA Claim; granted Defendant Trinitas'
Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' § 1983 and
Constitutional Claims; denied Defendant Trinitas' Motion for
Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' State Law Claims; and granted
Defendant Trinitas' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs'
Punitive Damages Claim. Specifically, City Defendants request
that the Court grant their motion for reconsideration and enter
an order either 1) vacating the dismissal without prejudice of
Count V and VI against Trinitas Hospital under
28 U.S.C. § 1376(c)(3); or, in the alternative, 2) reinstating the crossclaims of City Defendants against Trinitas Hospital for
contribution and indemnification; or, in the alternative, 3)
permitting City Defendants to file a third party complaint
against Trinitas Hospital for contribution and indemnification.
The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction of state law claims pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). For the reasons set forth below, the
Court DENIES City Defendants' motion for reconsideration in its
Plaintiffs are the administrators and heirs of the Estate of
Darlene Sanders, who was a resident of the City of Elizabeth, New
Jersey at the time of her death. (Compl. ¶¶ 2-6.)
Defendant Trinitas Hospital ("Trinitas"), Jersey and
Williamburg Campuses, is a medical care facility located in
Elizabeth, New Jersey. (Id. ¶ 7.)
Defendants John and Jane Smiths*fn1 are persons,
individuals, employees, agents, servants, supervisors and/or
entities of Trinitas responsible for administering healthcare
training on Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act
("EMTALA") who participated in the medical care of Darlene
Sanders. (Id. ¶ 13.) Defendant City of Elizabeth is a governmental body with
numerous departments for which it is responsible including the
City of Elizabeth Municipal Jail. (Id. ¶ 8.)
Defendant James Cosgrove ("Cosgrove") was at all relevant times
the Police Director for the City of Elizabeth responsible for
formulation and implementation of the policies and practices of
the City of Elizabeth Police Department. (Id. ¶ 9.)
Defendant John Simon ("Simon") was at all relevant times the
Chief of Police for the City of Elizabeth responsible for the
formulation and implementation of policies of the City of
Elizabeth Police Department. (Id. ¶ 10.)
Defendant Lt. Sofiankos ("Sofiankos") was the Desk Supervisor
on May 16, 2000 for the City of Elizabeth Police Department.
Defendants John and Jane Roes*fn2 are officers,
supervisors, agents, directors, employees, servants and/or
managers for the City of Elizabeth and/or its Police Department
and were policy makers responsible for the jail training to
administer health care to incarcerated persons or on-duty at the
time of Sanders' stay in the municipal jail. (Id. ¶ 12.)
II. Procedural History Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this Court on April 11,
2002. (Certification of Nancy S. Martin ("Martin Cert.") at Ex.
A.) Plaintiffs Complaint contains eight counts:
Count I: Violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment
and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd (against
Trinitas Hospital  Jersey & Williamsburg campuses)
(Compl. ¶¶ 38-42);
Count II: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Constitutional Tort (Id. at ¶¶ 43-47);
Count III: Federal Constitutional Claim  Improper
Medical Care (Id. at ¶¶ 48-50);
Count IV: State Constitutional Claim (Id. ¶¶ 51-55)
Count V: Wrongful Death (Id. at ¶¶ 56-59);
Count VI: Survival under State Law (Id. at ¶¶
Count VII: Substantive Due Process/Constitutional
Rights  42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Id. at ¶¶ 66-70); and
Count VIII: Substantive Due Process Rights under the
New Jersey Constitution (Id. at ¶¶ 71-75).
Defendants filed answers, discovery was conducted and expert
reports were exchanged. Defendant Simon, joined by all other City
Defendants and Trinitas, filed separate motions for summary
judgment on Plaintiffs' claims brought respectively against them.
On October 25, 2005, the Court issued the decision described at
the outset of this Opinion. On December 9, 2004, City Defendants
filed the present motion for reconsideration of this Court's
dismissal of all the crossclaims for contribution and
indemnification against Trinitas.
III. Background The full factual recitation of this matter has been set  forth
by this Court's decision in Sanders, et al. v. Trinitas Hosp.,
et al., No. 02-1655 (D.N.J. Oct. 25, 2004). The Court now
proceeds to decide City Defendants' motion for reconsideration of
the dismissal ...