Johnston et al v. Intermountain Healthcare et al, No. 1:2018cv00003 - Document 126 (D. Utah 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 100 Motion for Summary Judgment: the Johnstons' claims against Intermountain Healthcare are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 11/20/19 (alt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Johnston et al v. Intermountain Healthcare et al Doc. 126 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH ZACH JOHNSTON; BARBIE JOHNSTON; and ROES I-X, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 1:18-cv-0003-DN-DBP INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE; INTERMOUNTAIN NORTH OGDEN CLINIC; MCKAY-DEE HOSPITAL; ASL COMMUNICATIONS; and ROES I-X, District Judge David Nuffer Defendants. 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 1 Second Amended Complaint, docket no. 51, filed Nov. 28, 2018. The Johnstons’ Second Amended Complaint identifies Intermountain Healthcare, Intermountain North Ogden Clinic, and McKay-Dee Hospital as defendants. Id. However, the correct name is IHC Health Services, Inc., of which the named entities are dbas. 2 Intermountain’s Motion for Summary Judgment at 21-24, docket no. 100, filed Sept. 12, 2019. 3 Id. at 24-25. Dockets.Justia.com (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. 4 Id. at 26-28. 5 Id. at 29-35. 6 Id. at 35-37. 7 Id. at 37-39. 8 Id. at 39-40. 9 DUCivR 7-1(b)(3)(A). 10 DUCivR 56-1(f). 11 Motion for Summary Judgment at 4-21. 2 ORDER THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Intermountain’s Motion for Summary Judgment 12 is GRANTED. The Johnstons’ claims against Intermountain 13 are DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the case. Signed November 20, 2019. BY THE COURT ________________________________________ David Nuffer United States District Judge 12 Docket no. 100, filed Sept. 12, 2019. 13 Second Amended Complaint ¶¶ 49-107. 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
