Torres v. Boyer

Background

This order resolves Third-Party Defendant Andrew Dowd’s letter motion to stay the personal-injury action or, alternatively, sever the third-party action. Dowd’s request was based on his pending appeal from a conviction for fraud and related charges. Oral argument in that appeal occurred on September 25, 2024.

The opinion states that the third-party claim concerns contribution and overlaps to some extent with the criminal case, including whether Dowd performed unnecessary surgery and engaged in related fraudulent activity involving Hiram Torres. Torres’s personal claim was not specifically included in the criminal case. Torres opposed a stay but supported severance. The defendants and third-party plaintiffs opposed both forms of relief.

Stay request

The court denied the request for a stay. Dowd argued that the pending appeal, which could potentially result in a retrial if successful, created a risk that he would have to choose between invoking the Fifth Amendment and providing substantive answers in the civil case. The court concluded that his existing conviction reduced the likelihood of that dilemma.

The court also considered Torres’s interest in moving forward, the defendants’ interest in a timely resolution, the court’s interest in avoiding delay, and the limited public interest in the matter. The case remained in discovery and had been pending for more than three years; the accident had occurred six years earlier. In the court’s view, staying the case because of the third-party contribution claim would let that claim improperly control the main personal-injury action.

Severance request

The court also denied severance. It recognized that Torres’s case could proceed separately and that the defendants could seek contribution from Dowd only if Torres succeeded. But Dowd’s treatment of Torres after the accident was relevant to Torres’s claimed injuries and damages, creating common witnesses and evidence.

The court found that severance would not prejudice Torres but could prejudice the defendants and third-party plaintiffs by creating additional litigation costs and potentially affecting how a factfinder viewed Torres’s case. Keeping the claims together would largely promote judicial efficiency because medical treatment was already part of the action and two separate proceedings would not be necessary.

Disposition

Dowd’s application to stay or sever the case was denied. His request for additional time to serve his answer was granted, and the court ordered him to file the answer by October 29, 2024.