Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Johnston v. Intermountain Healthcare

United States District Court, D. Utah

November 20, 2019

ZACH JOHNSTON; BARBIE JOHNSTON; and ROES I-X, Plaintiffs,
v.
INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE; INTERMOUNTAIN NORTH OGDEN CLINIC; MCKAY-DEE HOSPITAL; ASL COMMUNICATIONS; and ROES I-X, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          David Nuffer United States District Judge

         Plaintiffs Zach and Barbie Johnston assert several claims against Defendants Intermountain Healthcare, Intermountain North Ogden Clinic, and McKay-Dee Hospital (collectively “Intermountain”) arising from multiple hospital visits at which the Johnstons allegedly requested, but were denied or refused accommodation for their hearing-impaired status.[1] Intermountain seeks summary judgment on the Johnstons' claims arguing:

(i) the Johnstons' claims based on events prior to March 22, 2017, are barred because the Johnstons did not disclose the claims in their prior bankruptcy proceedings;[2]
(ii) the Johnstons' claims based on alleged conduct occurring before January 5, 2016, are time barred;[3]
(iii) the Johnstons' claims fail because the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Intermountain provided the Johnstons with effective communication;[4]
(iv) the Johnstons' claims seeking monetary damages fail because there is no evidence that Intermountain acted willfully or that the Johnstons suffered damages;[5]
(v) the Johnstons' professional negligence claim is barred because the Johnstons failed to provide the required notice and participate in pre-litigation procedures;[6]
(vi) the Johnstons' claim for injunctive relief is moot;[7] and
(vii) the Johnstons lack standing to seek injunctive relief.[8]

         The Johnstons' response to Intermountain's Motion for Summary Judgment was due October 10, 2019.[9] The Johnstons failed to timely file a response. And to date, the Johnstons have not filed a response nor sought an extension of time to respond.

         Pursuant to local rule, “[f]ailure to respond timely to a motion for summary judgment may result in the court's granting the motion without further notice, provided the moving party has established that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”[10]

         Intermountain's Motion for Summary Judgment sets forth 80 undisputed material facts, which cite to record evidence.[11] These undisputed material facts support Intermountain's arguments and demonstrate that Intermountain is entitlement to judgment on the Johnstons' claims as a matter of law.

         ORDER

         THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Intermountain's Motion for Summary Judgment[12] is GRANTED. The Johnstons' claims ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.