The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-2815 CivilCARMEN L. SHALAN, Plaintiff JENNIFER LYNNE ERDMAN Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 02-2815 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., and OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., April 2, 2003. In this negligence action for personal injuries and property damage arising out of an automobile accident, the court currently has before it for disposition Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant argues that the statute of limitations applicable to Plaintiff's claims ran prior to the commencement of the action, while Plaintiff argues that the limitation period was extended because of a bankruptcy filing by Plaintiff. For the reasons stated in this opinion, Defendant's motion will be granted. STATEMENT OF FACTS This case stems from an automobile accident that occurred on December 24, 1999, in the 200 block of Gettysburg Pike, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.~ On August 31, 2001, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Relief under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey) The Bankruptcy Court, according to Defendant and certified court documents submitted by Defendant, entered an Order of Discharge in Bankruptcy in Plaintiff's case on December 10, 2001.3 ~ Compl. ¶ 5 & 6, filed Jul. 29, 2002; Def.'s Answer to Compl. with New Matter ¶ 5 & 6, filed Nov. 14, 2002. 2 Def.'s Answer to Compl. with New Matter ¶ 16; Pl.'s Reply to Def.'s New Matter ¶ 16, filed Dec. 3, 2002. Plaintiff avers she is a resident of New Jersey. Compl. ¶ 1. 3 Def. 's Answer to Compl. with New Matter ¶ 22; Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. A, filed Dec. 12, 2002. Plaintiff commenced the present action on June 10, 2002, by filing a Praecipe for Writ of Summons.4 Plaintiff's Complaint was filed on July 29, 2002.5 Defendant's Answer to Complaint with New Matter, raising the issue of the statute of limitations, was filed on November 14, 2002.6 Plaintiff's Reply to the Defendant's New Matter was filed on December 3, 2002, asserting that the statute of limitations was extended because Plaintiff had filed for bankruptcy.? Defendant filed a Motion for Leave of Court To Close Pleadings and Proceed with Civil Action on November 7, 2002.8 This motion was granted by the Honorable George E. Hoffer, President Judge of this Court, in an order dated November 7, 2002.9 Defendant then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on December 12, 2002, which is currently before the Court for disposition,l° Defendant argues that the action should be dismissed because the statute of limitations had run prior to the commencement of the action. ~ Plaintiff did not file an answer to this motion. However, in her brief Plaintiff argues that the statute of limitations had not run because the period within which a complaint could be filed by Plaintiff, a debtor in bankruptcy, was extended by 11 U.S.C. 108(a).~2 Both parties submitted briefs to the court and oral argument was held on February 12, 2003. 4 Praecipe for Writ of Summons, filed Jun. 10, 2002. 5 Compl., filed Jul. 29, 2002. It is noted that on July 1, 2002, Defendant filed a Praecipe for Rule To File Complaint and on July 30, 2002, Defendant filed a Notice of Default due to Plaintiff's failure to file a Complaint. Praecipe for Rule to file Compl., filed Jul. 1, 2002; Important Notice, filed Jul. 30, 2002. However, Plaintiff's Complaint had been filed in the interim. See Compl. 6 Def's Answer to Compl. with New Matter, filed Nov. 14, 2002. ? Pl.'s Reply to the Def.'s New Matter, filed Dec. 3, 2002. 8 Mot. for Leave of Court To Close Pleadings and Proceed with Civil Action, filed Nov. 7, 2002. 9 Order of Ct., Nov. 7, 2002. l0 Mot. for Summ. J., filed Dec. 12, 2002. ~ ]d. ~2 Pl.'s Brief at 2. 2 Pennsylvania law provides, of actions: DISCUSSION Statement of Law in pertinent part, as follows with respect to limitations The following actions and proceedings must be commenced within two years: (2) An action to recover damages for injuries to the person .... (3) An action for taking, detaining or injuring personal property .... Act of Jul. 9, 1976, P.L. 586, § 2, as amended, 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5524 (West Supp. 2002). United States Bankruptcy law provides, in relevant part, as follows: (a) If applicable nonbankruptcy law . . . fixes a period within which the debtor may commence an action, and such period has not expired before the date of the filing of the petition, the trustee may commence such action only before the later of: (1) the end of such period, including any suspension of such period occurring on or after the commencement of the case; or (2) two years after the order for relief. I I u.s.c. I08(a). The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has held that, "by its clear terms, Section 108's extension of time is applicable only to the trustee, not the debtor [in bankruptcy]." Solar Construction Company, Inc. v. Department of General Services, 105 Pa. Commw. 609, 615, 525 A.2d 28, 31 (1985)(emphasis in the original). On a summary judgment motion, the non-moving party "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the pleadings but must file a response within thirty days after service of the motion" that identifies: (1) one or more issues of fact arising from evidence in the record controverting the evidence cited in support of the motion or from a challenge to the credibility of one or more witnesses testifying in support of the motion, or 3 (2) evidence in the record establishing the facts essential to the cause of action or defense which the motion cites as not having being produced. Pa. R.C.P. 1035.3(a) "Summary judgment may be entered against a party who does not respond." Pa. R.C.P. 1035.3(d). Application of Law to Facts The Plaintiff, as a debtor and not a trustee in bankruptcy, can not benefit from the extension of time provided by 11 U.S.C. 108(a). Solar Construction Company, Inc. v. Department of General Services, 105 Pa. Commw. 609, 615, 525 A.2d 28, 31 (1985); 11 U.S.C. 108(a). Accordingly, because there is no applicable extension of time under federal bankruptcy law, the normal limitation period of two years on the current action controls. See 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5524. The accident which gave rise to the instant action occurred on December 24, 1999, and Plaintiff's Praecipe for Writ of Summons was filed on June 10, 2002, or almost two and one-half years after the accident. Therefore, the statute of limitations bars this action and the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2nd day of April, 2003, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the motion is granted and Plaintiff' s Complaint is dismissed. BY THE COURT, David W. Knauer, Esq. 411-A East Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Plaintiff /s/J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 4 Brigid Q. Alford, Esq. 315 North Front Street Post Office Box 741 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0741 Attorney for Defendant 5 6 CARMEN L. SHALAN, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vo CIVIL ACTION - LAW JENNIFER LYNNE ERDMAN Defendant NO. 02-2815 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., and OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2nd day of April, 2003, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the motion is granted and Plaintiff' s Complaint is dismissed. BY THE COURT, David W. Knauer, Esq. 411-A East Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Plaintiff J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Brigid Q. Alford, Esq. 315 North Front Street Post Office Box 741 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0741 Attorney for Defendant