Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Zilinskas v. Upmc

United States District Court, Third Circuit

May 29, 2013

DIANE M. ZILINSKAS, Plaintiff,
v.
UPMC; UPMC PRESBYTERIAN SHADYSIDE, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROBERT C. MITCHELL, Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court is Defendants', UPMC's and UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside's, Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 21] is denied.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on January 15, 2013 alleging claims under 29 U.S.C. ยงยง 621, and 623 et seq. [ADEA]. Defendants responded on April 5, 2013 by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint [ECF No. 13] and corresponding brief [ECF No. 14] claiming that it was untimely. After Plaintiff filed a reply brief [ECF No. 16], the Court entered an Order for Plaintiff to "file a brief addressing the application of equitable tolling" and for the Defendants to file a response. See 4/26/2013 Order. The Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order [ECF No. 20] denying Defendants' motion to dismiss on May 21, 2013. Defendants now move the Court to reconsider.

Defendants argue that "the Court's Memorandum Opinion does not address and cannot be reconciled with the following arguments and authorities" and provide four arguments in support of its motion for reconsideration:

(1) There is a presumption under the law - and Plaintiff does not dispute - that the right-to-sue letter arrived at Attorney Sheerer's firm at 1000 Main Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15215 within three days after it was mailed, or by September 29, 2012....
(2) Under controlling Supreme Court precedent, receipt of the notification letter from the EEOC by Attorney Sheerer's office on September 29, 2012 is receipt by Attorney Sheerer, thus beginning the running of the limitations period for bringing suit, notwithstanding that Attorney Sheerer may not have personally received notice until later....
(3) Regardless of whether or when Plaintiff or her lawyers received the EEOC's letter, they had adequate notice that, under the law (ADEA), Plaintiff had a right to sue in federal court 60 days after she filed her charge with the EEOC - over three years ago, in July 2009. ...
(4) In the end, "[p]rocedural requirements established by Congress for gaining access to the federal courts are not to be disregarded by courts out of a vague sympathy for particular litigants."

Defs' Mot. for Reconsideration [ECF No. 21] at 2 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

III. ANALYSIS

a. Legal Standard

A motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) "must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.'" Kulesa v. Rex, 2013 WL 1278451, at *2 (3d Cir. March 29, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.