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.

Yoder v. Frontier Nursing University, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

January 4, 2018

AMY YODER, Plaintiff,
v.
FRONTIER NURSING UNIVERSITY, INC., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          KIM R. GIBSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. Introduction

         Before the Court are (1) a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Frontier Nursing University, Inc. ("Frontier") (ECF No. 9) and (2) a Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by Plaintiff Amy Yoder (ECF No. 21).

         For the reasons below, the Court will DENY Frontier's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) as moot, and will GRANT Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint (ECF No. 21).

         II. Jurisdiction

         The Court has subject matter jurisdiction because the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.00. 28 U.S.C. §1332. Venue is proper as a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

         III. Background

         Frontier expelled Plaintiff from its online midwifery program after she was accused of violating the school's honor code. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 12.) Plaintiff claims that Frontier breached its contract with Plaintiff by dismissing her. (Id. at ¶¶ 29-34.)

         Plaintiff filed her one-count Complaint before this Court on February 2, 2017. (See id.) Frontier filed its Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) and a Brief in Support (ECF No. 10) on June 5, 2017. Frontier argues that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint because (1) Pennsylvania's four-year statute of limitations applies and (2) Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is barred because it accrued in 2012 when she was dismissed from Frontier and Plaintiff failed to file her Complaint before the statute of limitations expired in 2016. (Id. at 3-6.)

         On July 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document titled "Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Cross-Motion/New Matter to Amend Her Complaint." (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff asserts that (1) her claim is timely because Kentucky's fifteen-year statute of limitations applies, and (2) even if Pennsylvania's statute of limitations applies, Plaintiff's claim is not barred because her claim did not accrue until December 2014, when she received an email from the President of Frontier confirming that she would not be readmitted. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff attached the December 2014 email to her motion.[1] (See ECF No. 12-1.) Plaintiff stated that "[t]o the extent that these facts [concerning the December 2014 email] are not clearly set forth in her Complaint, Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to Amend her Complaint to include them." (ECF No. 12 at 2.) However, Plaintiff did not file a formal motion to amend her complaint.

         On August 23, 2017, the Court entered an Initial Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 18.) The Initial Scheduling Order stated that "[t]he parties shall move to amend the pleadings ... by August 16, 2017." (ECF No. 18 at 1.)

         On August 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document titled "Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Her Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Cross-Motion/New Matter to Amend Her Complaint."[2] (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff docketed this motion simply as a "Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint." (See id.) In this motion, Plaintiff states that "there are questions of law regarding the applicable limitations period[, ]" (id. at 2), and requests to amend her complaint to the extent that it lacks sufficient facts to determine when Plaintiff's claim accrued. (Id. at 2-3.)

         Also on August 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 20.) The Amended Complaint contains two paragraphs not pleaded in the original Complaint that directly relate to the question of when Plaintiff's claim accrued.[3]

         Frontier has not responded to "Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Her Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Cross-Motion/New Matter to Amend Her Complaint" (docketed as a "Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint" at ECF No. 21). Similarly, Frontier has not ...


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.