Legal Opinion
Byrne v. Cleveland Clinic
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided February 5, 2010No. Civil Action 09-889PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
GENE E.K. PRATTER, District Judge.
Pro se plaintiff William F. Byrne brings claims under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”), a federal statute, as well as a claim for breach of implied contract under Pennsylvania law. Defendants The Cleveland Clinic and Chester County Hospital move to dismiss the case pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and also because they argue Mr. Byrne did not file his complaint within the applicable statutes of limitations. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motions to dismiss to…
2Cases cited48 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Estelle v. GambleSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Enslin v. Coca-Cola Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
- Brzozowski v. Pennsylvania Turnpike CommissionDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2016
- McClure v. ParvisDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2018
- Kendall v. Lancaster Exploration & Dev. Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2018
- Cervantes v. Tenet Hosps. Ltd.District Court, W.D. Texas · 2019
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.