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 Thus, Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Complaint ECF No. 74 is DENIED as withdrawn.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