Baugher v. Kadlec Health System
Filing
80
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENJOIN, ETC. Plaintiffs Motion to Enjoin ECF No. 64 is DENIED. Defendants Motion for Additional Time to Respond ECF No. 68 and Defendants Motion to Expedite the same ECF No. 67 are DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs Motion to Withdraw her Motion to Dismiss Complaint ECF No. 78 is GRANTED. Thus, Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Complaint ECF No. 74 is DENIED as withdrawn. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)
1
+
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
6
7
PAMELA A. BAUGHER,
NO: 4:16-CV-5095-TOR
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ENJOIN, ETC.
v.
KADLEC HEALTH SYSTEM dba
REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER,
11
Defendant.
12
13
BEFORE THE COURT are Plaintiff’s Motion to Enjoin (ECF No. 64),
14
Defendant’s Motion for Additional Time to Respond (ECF No. 68) and
15
Defendant’s Motion to Expedite the same (ECF No. 67), Plaintiff’s Motion to
16
Dismiss Complaint (ECF No. 74), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw her Motion
17
to Dismiss Complaint (ECF No. 78). These matters were heard without oral
18
argument. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Defendant is represented by Jerome A.
19
Aiken and Peter M. Ritchie. The Court has reviewed the briefing and the record
20
and files herein, and is fully informed.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENJOIN, ETC. ~ 1
1
2
The parties are familiar with the facts of the case, Plaintiff’s allegations and
Defendant’s denials.
3
4
DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Enjoin (ECF No. 64)
5
When bringing a motion for a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must
6
demonstrate: (1) that she is likely to succeed on the merits of her claim; (2) that she
7
is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the
8
balance of equities tips in her favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public
9
interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20
10
(2008). A preliminary injunction can also be issued if “a plaintiff demonstrates . . .
11
that serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships
12
tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,” as well as satisfaction of the other Winter
13
factors. All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134–35 (9th Cir.
14
2011) (citation omitted).
15
Plaintiff’s complaint does not seek injunctive relief, but even if it did,
16
Plaintiff has not shown that the use of the EDIE notification system would be the
17
cause of irreparable harm. According to Defendant, the EDIE notification did not
18
adversely impact Plaintiff’s care, but rather, it is used “to improve care for patients
19
by helping providers identify and treat [frequent] users of [the] emergency
20
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENJOIN, ETC. ~ 2
1
department.” ECF No. 70 at ¶¶ 6-7. 1 To the extent a dispute remains, Plaintiff has
2
not yet established the prerequisites for injunctive relief. At this time, an
3
injunction must be denied.
4
B. MOTION TO DISMISS AND WITHDRAWAL (ECF Nos. 74, 78)
5
Plaintiff moved to dismiss her complaint on January 20, 2017. ECF No. 74.
6
However, on February 1, 2017, Plaintiff sought to withdraw her motion. ECF No.
7
78.
8
9
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A) provides that Plaintiff may only voluntarily
dismiss her case without a court order “before the opposing party serves either an
10
answer or a motion for summary judgment . . .” Defendant has previously filed
11
both. ECF Nos. 21, 44. Otherwise, “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s
12
request only by court order . . .” F.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). Plaintiff no longer seeks
13
dismissal. Accordingly, her motion to withdraw will be granted.
14
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
15
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Enjoin (ECF No. 64) is DENIED.
16
17
18
1
Defendant filed its response and supporting declarations on January 11,
19
2017, thus, its motion for extension of time and motion to expedite (ECF Nos. 67,
20
68) are moot.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENJOIN, ETC. ~ 3
1
2. Defendant’s Motion for Additional Time to Respond (ECF No. 68) and
2
Defendant’s Motion to Expedite the same (ECF No. 67) are DENIED as
3
moot.
4
3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw her Motion to Dismiss Complaint (ECF
5
No. 78) is GRANTED. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint
6
(ECF No. 74) is DENIED as withdrawn.
7
8
9
The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this Order and
provide copies to counsel.
DATED February 3, 2017.
10
11
THOMAS O. RICE
Chief United States Chief District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENJOIN, ETC. ~ 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?