Zietek v. Pinnacle Nursing & Rehab Center

Background

Genevieve Zietek, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Pinnacle Nursing & Rehab Center. The court construed her complaint as asserting claims under the Nursing Home Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396r. She alleged that Pinnacle staff physically and financially abused her and that two co-residents harassed her.

On July 28, 2021, the court issued an order of service. That order dismissed without prejudice Zietek’s claims against Justice Robert T. Johnson. It also severed and dismissed without prejudice her claims against Nurse Vanessa, Nurse Ana, Co-Resident Hector Ortiz Diaz, Co-Resident Damien A. Santos, and John Bryant of Social Services at Pinnacle. The court explained that those claims did not share sufficient legal or factual questions with the claims against Pinnacle and involved different times, participants, witnesses, and evidence.

Zietek later filed a motion and declaration seeking reconsideration of that order. She asked the court to restore the defendants originally named in her complaint and to allow the matter to proceed as a class action.

Reconsideration standard

The court treated Zietek’s filing as a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. Such a motion must generally be served within 14 days after the relevant order and must identify matters or controlling decisions the court overlooked. Reconsideration is limited to an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, a clear error, or the need to prevent manifest injustice. The court also noted that this procedure is narrowly applied so parties cannot repeat arguments the court already considered.

Analysis

The court nevertheless considered the motion’s substance because the delay was short and Zietek was representing herself. It found that she had not identified a change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or manifest injustice. Zietek argued that the alleged violations were similar and occurred under Pinnacle’s oversight, and that one case would be simpler. The court rejected those points because the claims against Pinnacle staff and co-residents had no factual or legal overlap with the claims against Pinnacle. It also stated that Zietek had not alleged that individual staff members were personally involved in the claims against Pinnacle or identified facts the court had overlooked.

The court further upheld its decision to separate the claims. It found that combining the claims was unlikely to promote efficiency because the relevant periods, parties, facts, and legal bases differed. A joint trial could confuse the jury and prejudice the defendants. The court also stated that Zietek could pursue her claims against the staff members and co-residents in a separate action, so it did not find that separating the claims prejudiced her.

Finally, the court rejected the class-action request as not properly before it. Zietek’s complaint did not assert claims for a proposed class or allege that anyone besides her experienced similar abuse or harassment at Pinnacle. Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, she could not raise that new claim for the first time in a reconsideration motion.

Disposition

The court denied Zietek’s motion for reconsideration. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 19 and mail Zietek a copy of the order. This was a procedural order concerning reconsideration, severance, and the attempted class-action request; the opinion did not decide the underlying abuse claims on their merits.