Opinion
C.A. No. 06C-07-042 WLW.
Submitted: January 19, 2007.
Decided: May 1, 2007.
Upon Defendant Correctional Medical Services, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss. Denied Without Prejudice.
Upon Defendants Correctional Medical Services, Inc., First Correctional Medical-Delaware, LLC, Tammy Kastre, M.D., Sitta Gomgeh-Alie, M.D. and Ihouma Chuks, N.P.'s Motions to Strike the Complaint. Granted in Part.
Stephen A. Hampton, Esquire of Grady Hampton, LLC, Dover, Delaware; attorneys for the Plaintiff.
Marc P. Niedzielski, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware; attorneys for Defendants Stanley W. Taylor and Thomas L. Carroll.
Lorenza A. Wolhar, Esquire and Bradley J. Goewert, Esquire of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman Goggin, Wilmington, Delaware; attorneys for Defendants Correctional Medical Services, Inc. and Correctional Medical Services of Delaware, Inc.
Dana Spring Monzo, Esquire of McCullough McKenty, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; attorneys for Defendants First Correctional Medical Delaware, LLC, Ihouma Chuks, N.P., Sitta Gombeh-Alie, M.D. and Tammy Kastre, M.D.
ORDER
Procedural History
Defendant Correctional Medical Services, Inc. ("CMS") concurrently filed a Motion to Dismiss portions of Plaintiff William P. Fossette's Compliant pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6) and a Motion to Strike portions of the Complaint pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 12(f) on October 11, 2006. Plaintiff responded to Defendant CMS' Motions on December 11, 2006, and the Court heard oral argument on both Motions on December 22, 2006. Pursuant to the Court's request, CMS filed a supplemental letter on January 5, 2007 expounding on their previously vague Motion to Strike. Mr. Fossette responded to CMS' letter on January 11, 2007.
All Defendants in this action are Stanley W. Taylor, Thomas L. Carroll, Correctional Medical Services, Inc., Correctional Medical Services of Delaware, LLC, First Correctional Medical, LLC, First Correctional Medical — Delaware, LLC, Tammy Kastre, M. D., Sitta Gombeh-Alie, M.D., Ihouma Chuks, N.P.
Subsequently, the Plaintiff further submitted a recent decision of President Judge Vaughn for the Court to consider by way of an April 11, 2007 letter. The decision, McNair v. Taylor, et. al., 2007 WL 1218681 (Del.Super.), is similar to the present case in regard to the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.
Defendants First Correctional Medical — Delaware, LLC ("FCM"), Tammy Kastre, M.D. ("Dr. Kastre"), Sitta Gombeh-Alie, M.D. ("Dr. Alie") and Ihouma Chuks (together "the FCM Defendants") filed a Motion to Strike the Complaint as Written pursuant to Rule 12(f) on December 11, 2006. Plaintiff responded to the FCM Defendants' Motion on January 10, 2007, and the Court heard oral argument on the Motion on January 19, 2007. Pursuant to the Court's request, the FCM Defendants filed a supplemental letter on January 26, 2007 expounding on their original Motion, which the Court found too vague. Plaintiff responded to the FCM Defendants' letter on February 2, 2007.
The FCM Defendants' January 26, 2007 letter added a statute of limitations claim not raised in their original Motion, apparently seeking to also Dismiss a portion of the Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Court will not address the appropriateness of this addition due to the Court's ruling on the Motions.
Also, The Plaintiff further submitted a supplemental letter containing the Benzene case for the Court's review on March 26, 2007. The FCM Defendants responded to that letter on March 27, 2007.
The Court has reviewed all of the Parties' submissions and heard oral argument on the original Motions. The Court will now address the Parties' contentions concurrently.
Discussion
I. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss
Defendant CMS contends that portions of the Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to 12(b)(6) for any acts or omissions of CMS which are alleged to have occurred prior to June 30, 2002. CMS provided medical services to inmates prior to July 1, 2002, before FCM took over operations of the medical facility. CMS again controlled the facility when it re-assumed control over operations from FCM in July 2005 through January 2006. CMS argues that Mr. Fossette's claims regarding constitutional violations and medical negligence are both subject to a two-year statute of limitations. Therefore, Mr. Fossette's claims concerning acts occurring before June 30, 2002 are time-barred, because the claims should have been brought prior to June 30, 2004. Mr. Fossette's p resent action was filed in 2006. The FCM Defendants contend that the Plaintiff's claims regarding acts occurring prior to July 25, 2004 should also be barred based on the two year statute of limitations.
In McNair, Judge Vaughn noted (before addressing the substance of the Motions before him) "that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense. It should be pled in an answer, not raised by way of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. After being so pled, it can be raised by a motion for judgement on the pleadings or a motion for summary judgment." Judge Vaughn acknowledged that the Court has proceeded to address the merits of a statute of limitations defense in the context of a 12(b)(6) motion at times.
Mr. Fossette contends that Defendants' statute of limitations arguments fail based on the allegations set forth in the Complaint. Specifically, the Plaintiff argues that he was subject to continuous medical negligent treatment from July 1, 2000 through January 1, 2006, which tolls the statute of limitations until the last negligent act occurred. Second, Mr. Fossette argues that the "time of discovery rule" is applicable to his claims for constitutional violations, and therefore, the allegations are not time barred. Finally, the Plaintiff argues that the statute of limitations for his civil rights and medical negligence claims are tolled because Defendants fraudulently concealed facts from Mr. Fossette.
The Court finds that at this point in the litigation there is not an adequate factual record to support or defeat the Plaintiff's contention that the "time of discovery" rule applies, that the Defendant fraudulently concealed facts, or that Mr. Fossette received continuous negligent medical treatment. Consequently, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are denied without prejudice. Defendant CMS and the FCM Defendants may re-raise these issues at a later time.
II. Defendants' Motions to Strike Portions of the Complaint
The Court may order stricken, upon motion of a party, from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter pursuant to Rule 12(f). The original Motions to Strike filed by CMS and the FCM Defendants were very vague. The Court therefore asked the Defendants to submit a detailed explanation of the specific paragraphs they wished to have stricken and the reasons behind their desire to strike said paragraphs. Upon review of the Parties' submissions and review of the Complaint, the following is a list of paragraphs and/or sentences or subsections of paragraphs that the Court will strike. At the very least, the matters contained in the following paragraphs are not appropriate for notice pleadings and contain conclusionary and argumentative statements otherwise immaterial or redundant to this proceeding: Sentence 1 of Paragraph 28; Paragraph 29; the last sentence of Paragraph 32; and the last sentence of Paragraph 37. Therefore, Defendants' Motions to Strike are granted in part.
CMS seeks to strike the following Paragraphs: 20, 23 (first sentence), 26, 28 (first sentence), 29 (first sentence and last two sentences), 33, 35 (first sentence), 39, 40 and 153 — 159. FCM seeks to strike the following Paragraphs: 16, 19 — 37, 40 — 51, 116, 117, 146 — 159, 168, 169, 170, 172, 176, 200, 201, 203, 207 and 209. The only Paragraph CMS seeks to strike that is not subsumed in the Paragraphs FCM seeks to strike is Paragraph 39.
The Court does not wish to dictate draftsmanship standards to counsel, but it is to be recommended that the parties and in particular the Plaintiff reexamine Superior Court Civil Rule 8(a)(1).
Based on the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are denied without prejudice, and Defendants' Motions to Strike Portions of the Complaint are granted in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED.