Microtel Inn & Suites v. Wilkes-Barre VA Medical Center

M.D. Pennsylvania

Microtel Inn & Suites v. Wilkes-Barre VA Medical Center

DecidedSeptember 8, 2020

Docket3:19-cv-00734

StatusUnknown

This text of Microtel Inn & Suites v. Wilkes-Barre VA Medical Center (Microtel Inn & Suites v. Wilkes-Barre VA Medical Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Microtel Inn & Suites v. Wilkes-Barre VA Medical Center, (M.D. Pa. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICROTEL INN & SUITES, : Plaintiff : Vv. : 3:19-CV-734 (JUDGE MARIANI) WILKES-BARRE VA MEDICAL CENTER, : Defendant : ORDER AND NOW, THIS x 4 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020, upon review of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 9) for clear error or manifest injustice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the R&R (Doc. 9) is ADOPTED AS MODIFIED: 1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED AS FOLLOWS: a. Construing Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on the basis of sovereign immunity as a facial challenge to this Court’s jurisdiction,’ Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Even accepting all allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint as true, a pure application of the law as set forth in Defendant's brief in support of the motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) and Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s R&R (Doc. 9), including Department of Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255

' See e.g. Giovanni v. U.S. Dep't of Navy, 433 F.Supp.3d 736, 741 (E.D. Pa. 2020) (“The assertion of sovereign immunity as a defense is properly treated as a facial challenge.”)(citing Urella v. Pa. State Troopers Ass'n, 628 F.Supp.2d 600, 604-605 (E.D. Pa. 2008).

(1999), demonstrates that Defendant has not waived sovereign immunity and that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs complaint. b. To the extent that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss may otherwise be construed as a factual attack to this Court's jurisdiction, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED for the reasons set forth in the R&R (Doc. 9). 2. Plaintiffs action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.? 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this action.

2 | to, Robert D. Mariani United States District Judge

2 This Court notes that, even if subject-matter jurisdiction existed here, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and Plaintiffs failure to retain counsel, respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss, file Objections to the pending R&R, or file any other document of record, demonstrates that it has failed to prosecute this action.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICROTEL INN & SUITES, : Plaintiff : Vv. : 3:19-CV-734 (JUDGE MARIANI) WILKES-BARRE VA MEDICAL CENTER, : Defendant : ORDER AND NOW, THIS x 4 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020, upon review of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 9) for clear error or manifest injustice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the R&R (Doc. 9) is ADOPTED AS MODIFIED: 1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED AS FOLLOWS: a. Construing Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on the basis of sovereign immunity as a facial challenge to this Court’s jurisdiction,’ Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Even accepting all allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint as true, a pure application of the law as set forth in Defendant's brief in support of the motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) and Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s R&R (Doc. 9), including Department of Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255

' See e.g. Giovanni v. U.S. Dep't of Navy, 433 F.Supp.3d 736, 741 (E.D. Pa. 2020) (“The assertion of sovereign immunity as a defense is properly treated as a facial challenge.”)(citing Urella v. Pa. State Troopers Ass'n, 628 F.Supp.2d 600, 604-605 (E.D. Pa. 2008).

(1999), demonstrates that Defendant has not waived sovereign immunity and that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs complaint. b. To the extent that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss may otherwise be construed as a factual attack to this Court's jurisdiction, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED for the reasons set forth in the R&R (Doc. 9). 2. Plaintiffs action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.? 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this action.

2 | to, Robert D. Mariani United States District Judge

2 This Court notes that, even if subject-matter jurisdiction existed here, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and Plaintiffs failure to retain counsel, respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss, file Objections to the pending R&R, or file any other document of record, demonstrates that it has failed to prosecute this action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Microtel Inn & Suites v. Wilkes-Barre VA Medical Center, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/microtel-inn-suites-v-wilkes-barre-va-medical-center-pamd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack