Kovalev v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings

SERGEI KOVALEV, Plaintiff v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS et al., Defendants

Civil Action No. 22-0552

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

February 22, 2023

MEMORANDUM

GENE E.K. PRATTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

There is bad blood between Sergei Kovalev and patient service centers operated by Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (“Labcorp Holdings”), Laboratory Corporation of America (“Labcorp”), their employees, and their affiliates, where Mr. Kovalev sought to have his blood tested.

Mr Kovalev commenced suit on his own, without counsel. Various motions filed by the many parties to the case are now before the Court. Labcorp and Labcorp Holdings both filed Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Mr, Kovalev filed two Motions to Strike. Adam Schechter and Labcorp Staffing Solutions, Inc. (“Labcorp Staffing”) filed Motions to Dismiss. Labcorp, Labcorp Holdings, Labcorp Staffing, and Mr. Schechter filed a Motion to Dismiss Improper Defendants. Finally, Mr. Kovalev filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint.

The Court will (1) grant Labcorp's Motion to Dismiss, (2) grant Labcorp Staffing's Motion to Dismiss, (3) grant Mr Schechter's Motion to Dismiss, (4) grant in part and deny in part Labcorp Holdings' Motion to Dismiss, (5) grant defendants' Motion to Dismiss Improper Defendants, (6) deny Mr. Kovalev's Motion to Amend Complaint, and (7) deny Mr, Kovalev's Motions to Strike.

Table of Contents

Background................3

I. Parties to the Case................3

II Facts................4

III. Procedural History................5

Legal Standard................7

Discussion................8

I Labcorp's and Labcorp Staffing's Motions to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction ................8

II. Motions to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim................14

A. Mr Schechter's Motion to Dismiss................15

B. Motion to Dismiss of Labcorp Holdings................16

1. Count I: Assault and Battery................16

2. Count II: Assault................17

3. Count HI: Assault................18

4. Count IV: Assault by Harassment or Independent Claim for Harassment................18

5. Counts V and VII: Assault by Ethnic Intimidation or Independent Claim for Ethnic Intimidation; Pennsylvania Civil Rights Violations - Violation of 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8309 19

7. Count VIII: Federal Race Discrimination in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(a) et seq. 22

8. Count IX: Federal Race Discrimination in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ................24

9. Count X: Conspiracy in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 ................25

10. Count XI; Violation of Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 Pa. Stat. § 201-1, et seq................26

11. Count XII: Negligence................27

12, Count XIII: Negligence Per Se..................................;29

13. Count XIV: Gross Negligence................30

14. Count XV: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress................30

15. Count XVI: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress................32

16. Count XVII: Reckless Endangerment................33

17. Count XVIII: Defamation, Defamation Per Se, and Defamation by Implication... 34 18. Count XIX: Invasion of Privacy - Intrusion Upon Seclusion................36

19. Count XX: Breach of Contract or Breach of Implied Contract................37

20. Motion to Strike Prayer for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief................38

21. Motion to Strike Claim for Punitive Damages..........39

III. Motion to Dismiss Improper Defendants..............39

A. Individual Labcorp Center Defendants................40

B. Jane Doe Defendants................41

IV. Mr. Kovalev's Motion to Amend His Complaint................43

V. Mr. Kovalev's Motions to Strike Motions to Dismiss Filed by Labcorp and Labcorp Holdings................44

Conclusion................44

Background

I. Parties to the Case

Labcorp Holdings and Labcorp are for-profit Delaware corporations with principal offices located in North Carolina. Mr. Kovalev asserts that Labcorp Holdings and Labcorp are owners and operators of the various Labcorp centers that set the scene for Mr. Kovalev's allegations, Labcorp Staffing is also a Delaware corporation, and it too has principal offices in North Carolina. Mr. Kovalev believes that Labcorp Staffing is responsible for hiring Labcorp's and Lab corp Holdings' employees, Adam Schechter is Labcorp's Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Kovalev alleges that Mr. Schechter creates and controls all of Labcorp's policies, including the hiring and training of Labcorp's employees.

Jane Does I through III are adults employed by Labcorp at the patient center located at 7439 Frankford Avenue. Does 1 through 15 are persons, companies, or corporations who were unknown to Mr. Kovalev at the time he filed his Amended Complaint.

Mr. Kovalev has also named the following individual Labcorp facilities as defendants: Labcorp Center - 7001 Frankford Avenue, Labcorp Center -7439 Frankford Avenue, and Labcorp Center - 8828 Frankford Avenue.

II. Facts

Mr. Kovalev traveled to four Labcorp patient service centers in Philadelphia on November 30, 2021, seeking to have blood drawn for medical testing. At the first location, 5349 Oxford Avenue, an employee, identified by Mr. Kovalev as African American, denied Mr. Kovalev the ability to obtain a copy of his test results directly, so Mr. Kovalev refused to have his blood drawn at that location.

Mr. Kovalev proceeded to the 7001 Frankford Avenue Labcorp patient center, where an employee whom Mr. Kovalev identified as Black allegedly did not follow proper hygiene procedures when handling the syringe for his blood draw. Fearing for his health and safety, Mr, Kovalev decided to leave that Labcorp center as well.

Mr. Kovalev arrived at a third Labcorp location at 7439 Frankford Avenue, self-registered at the location by scanning his driver's license, and sat in the waiting area. Jane Doe I, an African American employee as identified by Mr. Kovalev, called Mr. Kovalev's name, requested his date of birth, and his health insurance card. Instead of stating his birth date aloud, Mr. Kovalev provided his driver's license. After Jane Doe I again requested that Mr. Kovalev state his birthday, Mr. Kovalev refused, invoking his privacy concerns under HIPAA. Jane Doe I then called her supervisor, Jane Doe II, claiming that Mr. Kovalev had refused to give his date of birth. Mr. Kovalev “assumed with some degree of certainty” that Jane Doe II was also African American based on her name, and Jane Doe I “used some sort of coded language” to communicate to her supervisor that Mr. Kovalev was a white customer. Am. Compl. ¶ 88. After consulting with her supervisor, Jane Doe I accepted Mr. Kovalev's driver's license, asking him to remove his face mask to verify his identity. Mr. Kovalev refused to take off his mask given the Covid-19 pandemic, and Jane Doe I began to shout that she would call the police if Mr. Kovalev did not leave the office immediately, at Jane Doe H's urging. Another employee, Jane Doe III, whom Mr. Kovalev described as an “aggressive and agitated African-American female” then “cornered” Mr. Kovalev, displaying such “extreme hostility against a White person” that Mr. Kovalev began to fear for his life, and both Jane Doe I and Jane Doe HI continued to threaten to call the police. Am. Compl. ¶ 115-16. As Mr. Kovalev was leaving the premises, he recorded the scene on his cell phone. While he approached the exit, Jane Doe III hit Mr. Kovalev's phone with her open hand, almost knocking it away. Mr. Kovalev believed himself to be targeted at this location because of his race and ethnicity.

Still sanguine about his prospects of finding service at a Labcorp facility, Mr. Kovalev journeyed to a fourth patient service center located at 7439 Frankford Avenue. Mr. Kovalev explained to two Labcorp employees that their methods were unsanitary and grossly negligent. However, the blood draw was ultimately completed at this location, Mr. Kovalev alleges that his odyssey to the various Labcorp locations resulted in his “injury, loss, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, apprehension, grief, loss of enjoyment of life, harm and damages.” Am. Compl. ¶ 221.

III. Procedural History

Mr. Kovalev filed his complaint in the Philadelphia Court of Common. He initially named only Labcorp and Labcorp Holdings as defendants. Those defendants filed a Notice of Removal, and a month later, Mr. Kovalev filed an amended complaint, naming the following additional defendants: Labcorp Center - 7001 Frankford Avenue, Labcorp Center - 7439 Frankford Avenue, Labcorp Center - 8828 Frankford Avenue, Adam H. Schechter, Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II, Jane Doe III, Labcorp Staffing Solutions, Inc,, and Does 1 through 15.

The Amended Complaint sets forth 20 claims: (1) assault and battery - civil claims for intimidation, threats and physical attack (Count I); (2) assault - civil claims for intentional denial of medically necessary services (Count II); (3) assault - civil claims for subjecting plaintiff to extreme fear for life and health as a result of Labcorp's violations of sanitary and safety protocols (Count III); (4) assault by harassment or independent claim for harassment (Count IV); (5) assault by ethnic intimidation or independent claim for ethnic intimidation (Count V); (6) civil conspiracy - conspiracy to deny services, injure and defraud (Count VI) (7) Pennsylvania civil rights violations-violation of 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8309 (Count VII); (8) federal race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000a(a) et seq. (Count...