Lawrence v. Arkansas, 5:17-cv-296-DPM. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20180412809
Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . The unopposed motions to dismiss by Correct Care and Kelley, on behalf of all the other Defendants except the Does, N o 9 & N o 11, are granted. These Defendants are right. Rose Lawrence was not the estate's personal representative when she filed this action; and there was at least one heir—Phyllis Lawrence—who didn't join as a plaintiff. Rose therefore lacked standing to bring claims for survival and wrongful death under Arkansas la
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . The unopposed motions to dismiss by Correct Care and Kelley, on behalf of all the other Defendants except the Does, N o 9 & N o 11, are granted. These Defendants are right. Rose Lawrence was not the estate's personal representative when she filed this action; and there was at least one heir—Phyllis Lawrence—who didn't join as a plaintiff. Rose therefore lacked standing to bring claims for survival and wrongful death under Arkansas law..
More
ORDER
D.P. MARSHALL, JR., District Judge.
The unopposed motions to dismiss by Correct Care and Kelley, on behalf of all the other Defendants except the Does, No 9 & No 11, are granted. These Defendants are right. Rose Lawrence was not the estate's personal representative when she filed this action; and there was at least one heir—Phyllis Lawrence—who didn't join as a plaintiff. Rose therefore lacked standing to bring claims for survival and wrongful death under Arkansas law. ARK. CODE ANN. §§ 16-62-101(a)(1) & 102(b). And Rose's complaint didn't toll the three-year statute of limitations, which appears to have run a few days before suit was filed, and certainly has by now. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Circuit Court of Craighead County, Western Division, 348 Ark. 197, 203-07, 73 S.W.3d 584, 587-90 (2002); ARK. CODE ANN.§ 16-56-105(3). Rose's lack of standing, and the running of the statute, also dispose of the claims against the Doe Defendants, even though they haven't been identified. The complaint will therefore be dismissed with prejudice.
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
