Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-2884 MICHAEL C. BOARMAN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : V. : : RITE AID CORPORATION, RITE AID : OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., AND : NEALE SPENCELEY, RPh, : DEFENDANTS : 09-2884 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS’ PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, P.J. AND MASLAND, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., September 30, 2010:-- Before the court are the preliminary objections of Defendants, Rite Aid Corporation, Rite Aid of Pennsylvania, Inc., and Neale Spenceley, Rph. to the second amended complaint of Plaintiff, Michael C. Boarman. Defendants object to Plaintiff's second amended complaint on three grounds. (1) Defendants ask the court to strike the second amended complaint in its entirety as it was amended without leave of court after the expiration of the statue of limitations. (2) Defendants argues Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for punitive damages because he failed to plead sufficient facts to support a finding that Defendants acted with evil motive or with reckless indifference to Plaintiff's rights. (3) Defendants ask the court to strike several paragraphs and exhibits from the second amended complaint because they constitute scandalous or impertinent matter. After briefing and argument by the parties, we reach the following conclusions: (1)(a) Plaintiff's amended complaint will not be stricken in its entirety and will be reviewed as if filed with leave of court; (1)(b) future amended complaints shall not be filed without leave of court 09-2884 CIVIL TERM or the consent of the Defendants; (2) Plaintiff's request for punitive damages will not be stricken, and, (3) paragraphs 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, and 29, and exhibits A to E of the second amended complaint are not stricken as impertinent. I. Background This matter arises from Defendants' alleged misfill of Plaintiff's prescription medication resulting in various injuries. Relevant here, Plaintiff alleges the misfill was the result of Defendant's willful, wanton, and reckless actions and thus requests punitive damages. We previously granted Defendant's preliminary objections to Plaintiff's amended complaint and struck the request for punitive damages on the grounds that he failed to plead sufficient facts to support such relief. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed the instant amended complaint without leave of court or consent of Defendants. In his second amended complaint, Plaintiff reiterates his previously stricken request for punitive damages. However now, he has pleaded additional facts and entered several news articles into the record to support his request. These articles, printed from the internet and arising from events in other jurisdictions, purport to substantiate Plaintiff's assertion that the alleged prescription misfill was the result of widespread knowing corporate mismanagement. II. Discussion A. Amendment of Complaint without Leave of Court Generally, a party may liberally amend its complaint “either by filed consent of the adverse party or by leave of court ….” Pa. R.C.P. No. 1033. Here it is undisputed Plaintiff did not comply with the applicable procedural rule. Nonetheless, we decline to strike his second amended complaint. See Pa. R.C.P. No. 126 (establishing liberal construction of procedural rules). In the interests of judicial economy and in the absence of prejudice to the Defendants, we treat the amended complaint as if filed with consent of the court. However, future -2- 09-2884 CIVIL TERM amendments shall not be filed without leave of court or the consent of the Defendants. B. Punitive Damages Claims Next, we address whether Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts in his second amended complaint to support a punitive damages claim. In Pennsylvania, “[p]unitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others.” McDaniel v. Merck, Sharp & Dohme, 533 A.2d 436, 447 (Pa. Super. 1987). In evaluating a request for punitive damages, “the trier of fact can properly consider the character of the defendant's act, the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff that the defendant caused or intended to cause and the wealth of the defendant.” Id. Importantly, “[t]he state of mind of the actor is vital in a punitive damages claim.” Id. at 448. Here, Plaintiff's second amended complaint contains sufficient facts to allow a claim for punitive damages against the Defendants. Plaintiff contends that despite extensive knowledge of prior prescription misfills, Defendants knowingly maintained inadequate safety procedures. Specifically, Plaintiff avers: the pharmacists were overwhelmed with work, were pressured to fill more prescriptions per hour than could safely be done, were ill prepared to handle the work load, were lacking in sufficient experience to handle the work load, and were improperly trained in proper safety procedures. Pl.'s 2d Am. Compl. at ¶23. Thus, Plaintiff alleges the Defendants knew of a significant risk of illness and death resulting from their dangerous pharmacy practices and deliberately failed to take appropriate remedial steps. Read liberally, Plaintiff's allegations go to Defendants' culpable state of mind and provide a sufficient basis for a punitive damages claim because the alleged misconduct is beyond that required in the underlying negligence claim. Where a plaintiff's pleadings allege -3- 09-2884 CIVIL TERM “facts that demonstrate the requisite state of mind, punitive damages may be awarded.” McDaniell, 533 A.2d at 448. Here, Plaintiff has done just this. Accordingly, we deny Defendants' request to strike Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages from the second amended complaint. C. Inclusion of Scandalous or Impertinent Matter Finally, we address Defendants' preliminary objection to paragraphs 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, and Exhibits A through E because they constitute scandalous or impertinent matter. Stated briefly, the objected-to material is that added to the second amended complaint to support the punitive damages claims. For the following reasons, the material will not be stricken, and Defendants objection is denied. Pleadings are objectionable when they include scandalous or impertinent matter. Pa. R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(2) “To be scandalous and impertinent, the allegations must be immaterial and inappropriate to the proof of the cause of action.” Common Cause/Pennsylvania v. Com., 710 A.2d 108, 114-15 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). Here, the objected-to material is clearly relevant to Plaintiff's punitive damages claims. Under his theory of the case, Plaintiff must establish that the Defendants knowingly engaged in dangerous business practices relating to the dispensation of pharmaceuticals. Thus, paragraphs 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, and 29 of the second amended complaint, where he describes these practices, will not be stricken. For related reasons, Exhibits A through E also will not be stricken. Defendants' arguments for striking these news articles are more properly framed as attacks on the exhibits' relevance rather on their impertinence. Irrelevance does not entail impertinence. As the case moves forward, Defendants will have ample opportunity to dispute the admissibility of these exhibits on any number of grounds. However, at this time, these reports of allegedly similar prescription misfills by the Defendants will not be stricken. Compare id. at 115 (striking -4- 09-2884 CIVIL TERM lengthy editorial introduction to petition for review that improperly cast a derogatory light on Executive and Legislative branches). III. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's amended complaint will not be stricken in its entirety and will be reviewed as if filed with leave of court. However, future amended complaints shall not be filed without leave of court or the consent of the Defendants. Further, Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to maintain his request for punitive damages. Finally, the objected-to portions of the second amended complaint will not be stricken as impertinent. Defendants' preliminary objections are denied. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of September, 2010, the preliminary objections of ARE DENIED. Defendants, By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire For Plaintiff E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire For Defendants :saa -5- MICHAEL C. BOARMAN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : VI. : : RITE AID CORPORATION, RITE AID : OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., AND : NEALE SPENCELEY, RPh, : DEFENDANTS : 09-2884 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS’ PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, P.J. AND MASLAND, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of September, 2010, the preliminary objections of ARE DENIED. Defendants, By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire For Plaintiff E. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire For Defendants :saa