Malmrose v. AljoeMalmrose v. Aljoe
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Prеsently there are two motions pending before us in the above action. The first is a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint filed by defendant Estate of F. G. Aljоe. In this motion the defendant argues that, under Pennsylvania law, an action cannot be brought against a decedent’s estate. Rather the actiоn must be brought against the personal representative of the decedent. See,
The second motion pending in this case is the plaintiff’s motion to amend its cоmplaint to substitute R. Loretta Turner, Executrix of the Estate of F. G. Aljoe, as a named defendant. According to the plaintiff this amendment would cure the inadequacies in the plaintiff’s original complaint and would effectively defеat the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
In this case we believe that the plaintiff shоuld be allowed to amend her complaint. Accordingly we will grant the plаintiff’s motion to amend and deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Nor do we believe'that the statute of limitations bars this amendment of the plaintiff’s complaint.
In this case we feel that the requirements of
Accordingly this 15th day of December 1981 IT IS ORDERED that the motion of defendant Estate of F. G. Aljоe to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to amend hеr complaint to substitute R. Loretta Turner, Executrix of the Estate of F. G. Aljoe for defendant Estate of F. G. Aljoe is GRANTED.