United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MICHAEL C. LAMPLEY and TERRI L. LAMPLEY, Plaintiffs,
FRANKLIN COUNTY, ILLINOIS, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Correct Care
Solutions, LLC's (“CCS”) Motion (Doc. 40) to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Doc. 36) pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs
filed a response (Doc. 44).
CCS moves to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint based
upon the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs'
initial complaint (Doc. 1) was filed on February 1, 2016, and
incorrectly named Great heights Family Medicine, Ltd. as the
employer of defendant Dr. Adeyemi Fatoki. Upon discovering
that Dr. Fatoki was actually acting within the scope of his
employment with CCS, plaintiffs moved to amend their
complaint and add CCS as a defendant. (Doc. 34). The Court
granted plaintiffs' motion to amend (Doc. 35) and
plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on February 28,
amended complaint alleges that Dr. Fatoki was acting within
the scope of his employment with CCS when he allegedly failed
to properly treat plaintiff Michael Lampley's medical
condition of diverticulitis causing plaintiff Michael
Lampley's bowel to rupture. The incident occurred in
February 2014 when Plaintiff Michael Lampley was in the
custody of the Franklin County Sheriff's Department at
the Franklin County jail in Benton, Illinois. The amended
complaint alleges one count of medical negligence; one count
of respondent superior; one count of indemnification; and one
count of loss of consortium against CCS.
reviewing defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss,
the Court accepts as true all allegations in the complaint.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). To avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure
to state a claim, a complaint must contain a “short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). This
requirement is satisfied if the complaint (1) describes the
claim in sufficient detail to give the defendant fair notice
of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests and
(2) plausibly suggests that the plaintiff has a right to
relief above a speculative level. Bell Atl., 550
U.S. at 555; see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009); EEOC v. Concentra Health Servs., 496
F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl.,
550 U.S. at 556).
Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides, in pertain part:
(c) Relation Back of Amendments.
When an Amendment Relates Back. An amendment to a
pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading
the law that provides the applicable statute of limitations
allows relation back;
(B) the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose
out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out--or
attempted to be set out--in the original pleading; or
the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party
against whom a claim is asserted, if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is
satisfied and if, within the period provided by Rule 4(m)
for serving the summons and complaint, the party to be
brought in by amendment:
received such notice of the action that it will not be
prejudiced in defending on the merits; and
knew or should have known that the action would have been
brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper
“[d]ismissing a complaint as untimely at the pleading
stage is an unusual step, since a complaint need not
anticipate and overcome affirmative defenses, such as the
statute of limitations. But dismissal is appropriate when the
plaintiff pleads himself out of court by alleging facts
sufficient to establish the complaint's tardiness.
Cancer Foundation, Inc. v. Cerberus Capital Management,
LP, 559 F.3d 671, 674 (7th Cir. 2009).
case, the plaintiffs have demonstrated that the amendment
relates to a claim that arose out of the conduct,
transaction, or occurrence set out in the original pleading
and that CCS knew, or should have known, that this action
would have been properly brought against it but for the
mistake concerning the identity of Dr. Fatoki's employer.
CCS did not file an objection to plaintiffs' Motion (Doc.
34) for Leave to Amend and join CCS as a defendant. As such,
the Court found that Plaintiffs' proposed amended
complaint was neither unduly delayed nor futile or brought
with dilatory motive. (Doc. 35). The Court further finds that
CCS will not be prejudiced in defending the merits of this
on the above, Defendant Correct Care Solutions, LLC's
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of ...