Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Caluyo v. Davita, Inc.

United States District Court, District of Columbia

April 10, 2013

CHRISTINE CALUYO, Plaintiff,
v.
DAVITA, INC. and DAVITA RX, LLC, Defendants

For CHRISTINE CALUYO, Plaintiff: Jason W. Fernandez, LEAD ATTORNEY, GREENBERG & BEDERMAN, Silver Spring, MD.

For DAVITA INC., Defendant: Heather S. Deane, LEAD ATTORNEY, Andrew Butz, BONNER, KIERNAN, TREBACH & CROCIATA, LLP, Washington, DC.

For DAVITA RX LLC, Defendant: Heather S. Deane, LEAD ATTORNEY, BONNER, KIERNAN, TREBACH & CROCIATA, LLP, Washington, DC.

OPINION

Page 68

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Christine Caluyo (" Plaintiff" ) brings the above-captioned action against Defendants DaVita, Inc. and DaVita Rx, LLC (collectively, " Defendants" ) asserting one count of negligence against each defendant in connection with an injury suffered by Plaintiff while she was receiving dialysis treatments. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' employee negligently failed to secure the wheel lock on Plaintiff's dialysis chair, causing her to fall from the chair and strike her head. Presently before the court are Defendants' [4] Motion to Dismiss, Defendants' [11] Amended Motion to Transfer Venue, and Defendants' [14] Request for Hearing on Defendants' Amended Motion to Transfer Venue.

Upon consideration of the parties' submissions [1] and the relevant authorities, the Court shall GRANT Defendants' [11] Amended Motion to Transfer Venue and shall accordingly transfer this action to the Alexandria Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (" Eastern District of Virginia" ). In exercise of its discretion, and because the Court finds that holding oral argument would not have been of assistance in rendering a decision, Defendants' [14] Motion for a Hearing is DENIED. See LCVR 7(f).

Further, in light of the transfer of venue, the Court shall not address the substance of Defendants' [4] Motion to Dismiss and shall instead DENY-WITHOUT-PREJUDICE the motion so that Defendants may re-file it, if appropriate, upon transfer to the Eastern District of Virginia.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 4, 2012, Plaintiff, a citizen of Virginia, filed the instant Complaint in D.C. Superior Court against Defendants, whom Plaintiff describes in the Complaint as foreign corporations registered with the District of Columbia. See Compl. The Complaint alleges that on or about July 6, 2009, Caluyo was receiving dialysis treatments at Defendants' facility and was injured after Defendants' employee negligently failed to secure the wheel lock on Plaintiff's dialysis chair, causing Plaintiff to fall from the chair and strike her head. Id. at ¶ ¶ 5-7, 12-14. Although the Complaint is silent as to the name and location of the treatment facility where Plaintiff was allegedly injured, Plaintiff represents in subsequent submissions to the Court that the incident occurred at Defendants' dialysis facility in Arlington, Virginia. See Pl.'s Mem. at 1; see also Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Opp'n to Defs' Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. [7], at 1.

On October 31, 2012, Defendants timely filed a Notice of Removal, and removed the case to this Court as a diversity action. See Notice of Removal, ECF No. [1]. On November 6, 2012, Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3), 12(b)(4), 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(7). See Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss & Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. [4]. Plaintiff filed her opposition on November 28, 2013, see Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Opp'n to Defs' Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. [7]. Defendants

Page 69

filed their reply on December 11, 2012. See Defs' Reply Brief in Supp. of Mot. to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.