United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MARY A. KEISLER and JOHN S. KEISLER, Plaintiffs,
MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES-WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, PORTFOLIO ONE, LLC, HCR HEALTHCARE, LLC, HEARTLAND, LLC, HCR MANORCARE, INC, LP CARLYLE PARTNERS, MANOR CARE, INC., OPERATIONS II HCR MANORCARE, ABC COMPANIES (1-10), DEF PARTNERSHIPS (1-10), JOHN DOE PHYSICIANS (1-10), JANE DOE NURSES (1-20), and JANE MOE TECHNICIANS, CNAs, and PARAMEDIC EMPLOYEES (1-20), Defendants.
L. GORDON PHILLIP J. ANDERSON SHANE P. SIMON BUCHANAN
INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC Attorney for Defendants.
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
case concerns common law and statutory claims stemming from
injuries sustained by Plaintiff Mary A. Keisler while at a
nursing home operated by Defendants in Washington Township,
New Jersey. Presently before the Court is Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b) (“Motion to Dismiss”). This Court will
grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for the reasons
Court takes its facts from Plaintiffs' complaint. Between
February 17 and February 25, 2015, Plaintiff Mary Keisler was
a patient at the nursing home operated by Defendants in
Washington Township, New Jersey. Plaintiff John S. Keisler
was her husband. At some point in February 2015, it appears
Mary Keisler suffered injuries, which included a hip
fracture, severe bruising, facial contusions, and
December 1, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Gloucester County. The
complaint alleged four counts against all Defendants for (1)
negligence, (2) violations of N.J. Rev. Stat. § 30:13-1,
et seq., (3) punitive damages, and (4) per quod.
Defendants removed the case to this Court on March 9, 2017 on
the basis of diversity.
proceeded shortly thereafter. On November 21, 2017,
Plaintiffs' counsel informed the Court via letter that
Mary Keisler had passed away. (ECF No. 15.) The letter stated
that John Keisler still wished to pursue the claims, but
needed to set up Mrs. Keisler's estate first. (ECF No.
15.) Discovery deadlines were extended sixty days to
accommodate Plaintiffs' schedule. (ECF No. 17.) On
January 26, 2018, Plaintiffs' counsel informed the Court
that he had not been able to get in contact with Mr. Keisler
and had hired a private investigator to find his client. (ECF
No. 18.) Discovery deadlines were again extended for another
sixty days. (ECF No. 20.) Besides a status conference in
March and July 2018, no further progress has been made in
this case. As of the writing of this opinion, it appears Mr.
Keisler has not been located nor has he responded to
correspondence from his counsel.
August 10, 2018, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss.
No. response was filed by Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Motion
to Dismiss is ripe for adjudication.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Rule 41(b) Standard
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court may
dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute his
case or comply with the court rules or a court order.
when deciding whether to dismiss a case for a plaintiff's
failure to prosecute, the Court must consider the six factors
set forth in Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty