Paul Oikarinen v. Alexian Brothers, a Corporation of the State of New Jersey. Paul Oikarinen v. Joseph A. Piccolella

Third Circuit

Paul Oikarinen v. Alexian Brothers, a Corporation of the State of New Jersey. Paul Oikarinen v. Joseph A. Piccolella

342 F.2d 155, 9 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 21, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6350

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 3, 1965

Docket14966, 14967

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 342 F.2d 155 (Paul Oikarinen v. Alexian Brothers, a Corporation of the State of New Jersey. Paul Oikarinen v. Joseph A. Piccolella) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Paul Oikarinen v. Alexian Brothers, a Corporation of the State of New Jersey. Paul Oikarinen v. Joseph A. Piccolella, 342 F.2d 155, 9 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 21, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6350 (3d Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Both these suits are based on diversity of citizenship. In the first, No. 14966, the defendant is a New Jersey non profit corporation organized exclusively for hospital purposes. The claim against it is for alleged negligence in connection with personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while a patient in defendant’s hospital.

Admittedly the provisions of New Jersey Statute 2A:53A-7, 8, N.J.S.A. limiting liability for negligence to $10,-000 in the type of action before us, applies to the defendant. It is further necessarily conceded in this court that as a consequence, the matter in controversy does not exceed “the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a) and therefore that the district court did not have jurisdiction of the cause.

In that situation appellant, in the district court, moved to add the corporate defendant in his first suit as a party defendant in No. 14967. In the latter, it is alleged that Joseph A. Piccolella the defendant, was employed at the hospital while plaintiff was there as a patient and that plaintiff injured himself “by reason of the negligence of the defendant.” In denying this motion Judge Shaw in the district court correctly held that “The only thing that brings these cases together is an order to consolidate for the purpose of trial. In every other respect each action stands as a separate action.”

*156 The summary judgment in the district eourt in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff in No. 14966 will be affirmed.

The order of the district court in No. 14967 denying the motion of plaintiff to add Alexian Brothers, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, as a party defendant in this cause will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Both these suits are based on diversity of citizenship. In the first, No. 14966, the defendant is a New Jersey non profit corporation organized exclusively for hospital purposes. The claim against it is for alleged negligence in connection with personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while a patient in defendant’s hospital.

Admittedly the provisions of New Jersey Statute 2A:53A-7, 8, N.J.S.A. limiting liability for negligence to $10,-000 in the type of action before us, applies to the defendant. It is further necessarily conceded in this court that as a consequence, the matter in controversy does not exceed “the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a) and therefore that the district court did not have jurisdiction of the cause.

In that situation appellant, in the district court, moved to add the corporate defendant in his first suit as a party defendant in No. 14967. In the latter, it is alleged that Joseph A. Piccolella the defendant, was employed at the hospital while plaintiff was there as a patient and that plaintiff injured himself “by reason of the negligence of the defendant.” In denying this motion Judge Shaw in the district court correctly held that “The only thing that brings these cases together is an order to consolidate for the purpose of trial. In every other respect each action stands as a separate action.”

*156 The summary judgment in the district eourt in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff in No. 14966 will be affirmed.

The order of the district court in No. 14967 denying the motion of plaintiff to add Alexian Brothers, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, as a party defendant in this cause will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 F.2d 155, 9 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 21, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-oikarinen-v-alexian-brothers-a-corporation-of-the-state-of-new-ca3-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack