Parada v. Pennington et al, No. 2:2021cv00534 - Document 164 (D. Utah 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 148 Plaintiff's MOTION to Dismiss Party and denying as moot 149 MOTION to Amend/Correct Pleading and Cross-Claim. Sean J. Henderson (D.O.), Bradley C. Burton (PA-C) and Granger Medical Clinic PC terminated. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 11/6/2023. (mh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Parada v. Pennington et al Doc. 164 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION SARA PARADA, individually and as parent/guardian acting for and on behalf of D.P., a minor; MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS SEAN HENDERSON, BRADLEY BURTON, AND GRANGER MEDICAL CLINIC, P.C. AND DENYING DEFENDANT IHC HEALTH SERVICES, INC’S RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED PLEADING AND CROSS-CLAIM AS MOOT Plaintiffs, v. DAVID PENNINGTON, M.D. et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:21-cv-00534-TS-JCB Judge Ted Stewart Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion Under Rule 41 for Voluntary Dismissal of Defendants Sean Henderson, Bradley Burton, and Granger Medical Clinic, P.C.1 and Defendants IHC Health Services, Inc. dba Utah Valley Hospital and IHC Health Services, Inc. dba Intermountain Medical Group’s (collectively “IHC”) Renewed Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleading and Cross-Claim. 2 For the reasons discussed herein, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion and deny Defendants’ Motion as moot. 1 Docket No. 148. 2 Docket No. 149. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiffs sue Defendants alleging medical negligence arising from the prenatal care of Sara Parada and the subsequent care of her child, D.P. Defendants Sean J. Henderson, D.O., Bradley C. Burton, PA-C, and Granger Medical Clinic, P.C. (“Granger Defendants”) and David Pennington, M.D., and Pennington Medical Center PLLC (“Pennington Defendants) previously filed motions for summary judgment 3 after which IHC immediately filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Pleading and Cross-Claim to allocate fault to both groups of Defendants. 4 Plaintiffs filed notices of non-opposition to the motions for summary judgment and then subsequently retained new counsel. Pennington Defendants withdrew their motion for summary judgment. With their new counsel, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Granger Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court denied Granger Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment finding it was premature. 5 The Court also denied IHC Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend finding that it was premised on the summary judgment motions that were withdrawn and denied. The Court stated in the Order that if summary judgment was entered against Granger or Pennington Defendants at a later time, IHC could renew its motion. 6 Plaintiffs now move for voluntary dismissal of Granger Defendants with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. The Motion is unopposed. IHC Defendants renewed its Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleading and Cross-Claim “to preserve its Fourth Affirmative Defense.” 7 3 Docket Nos. 62, 63. 4 Docket No. 66. 5 Docket No. 143, at 2. 6 Id. at 2–3. 7 Docket No. 157, at 2. 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) provides that “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Based on Plaintiffs’ Motion and good cause appearing, the Court will grant the Motion and dismiss all claims against Granger Defendants without prejudice. As such, IHC Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend the pleadings to assert cross claims against Granger Defendants is denied as moot as they are no longer parties. This ruling does not preclude IHC Defendants from otherwise seeking to allocate fault against the dismissed parties as permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion Under Rule 41 for Voluntary Dismissal (Docket No. 148) is GRANTED, the dismissal is without prejudice; it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleading and Cross-Claim (Docket No. 149) is DENIED AS MOOT. DATED November 6, 2023. BY THE COURT: ________________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge 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.
