Steele v. Extendicare Homes Inc et al, No. 2:2008cv01332 - Document 91 (W.D. Wash. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER granting dft's 30 Motion for Summary Judgment against pltfs Grieb and Gunderson and denying pltfs' 36 Motion to Continue the Hearing Pursuant to FRCP 56(f). Because there are no remaining named pltfs, the Court dismisses the complaint and directs the Clerk to close the case, by Judge John C Coughenour.(VP)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Steele v. Extendicare Homes Inc et al Doc. 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 10 HOWARD STEELE, as the Personal Representative for the Estate of Lee Ann Steele, JANETTE GRIEB, a single person, and SHARON GUNDERSON, aka SHARON PRIEBE, ORDER 11 Plaintiffs, 12 13 14 CASE NO. C08-1332-JCC v. EXTENDICARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC.; EXTENDICARE HOMES, INC.; and FIR LANE TERRACE CONVALESCENT CENTER, INC., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Against 18 Plaintiffs Grieb and Gunderson (Dkt. No. 30), Plaintiffs’ Response in opposition (Dkt. No. 42), and 19 Defendants’ Reply (Dkt. No. 65). In addition, this Order addresses Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue the 20 Hearing Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) (Dkt. No. 36), Defendants’ Response in 21 opposition (Dkt. No. 60), and Plaintiffs’ Reply (Dkt. No. 63). The Court has carefully considered these 22 papers and their supporting declarations and exhibits, including Defendants’ Supplemental Authority in 23 support of their motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 87)1 and Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ 24 1 25 The Court has not, however, taken into consideration the “Responsive Declaration of Stephen M. Garcia in Extendicare Washington in Support of Rule 56(f) Motion.” (Dkt. No. 86.) In it, Mr. Garcia 26 ORDER – 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Supplemental Authority (Dkt. No. 90), and has determined that oral argument is not necessary. The 2 Court hereby finds and rules as follows. 3 I. 4 BACKGROUND On August 21, 2008, Plaintiff Howard Steele2 filed a class action complaint in King County 5 Superior Court, asserting that Defendants violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA” or 6 the “Act”), WASH. REV. CODE Ch.19.86, by failing “to operate their nursing homes in conformity with 7 their representations and advertisements made to the general public and prospective residents[.]” (State 8 Compl. ¶ 30 (Dkt. No. 1 at 23).) Steele asserted that Defendants intentionally misrepresented that their 9 nursing homes met the needs of their residents. (Id.) The class sought to be certified included all persons 10 who resided in Washington nursing homes owned, operated, or managed by Defendants from August 11 15, 2004 to August 15, 2008. (Id. ¶ 1.) The complaint made clear that the sole cause of action was 12 violation of the CPA and that the “action [did] not seek recovery for bodily injury, wrongful death or 13 other personal injury claims that an individual class member may have with respect to care provided (or 14 not provided)” at Defendants’ facilities. (Id. ¶ 30.) 15 Defendants removed the case to federal court on September 5, 2008. (Notice of Removal (Dkt. 16 No. 1 at 1–8).) On October 1, 2008, Steele filed an Amended Complaint, which added Janette Grieb and 17 Sharon Gunderson as Plaintiffs. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10–11 (Dkt. No. 15 at 5–6).) Because Steele has since 18 been voluntarily dismissed from the lawsuit, Grieb and Gunderson are the sole remaining named 19 20 21 22 23 states that he “strenuously disagree[s] with the conclusionary argument contained within Ms. Duffy’s declaration.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs had an opportunity to voice their disagreements with Defendants’ Response (Dkt. No. 60) and the Duffy Declaration attached thereto (Dkt. No. 61) in their Reply filed on January 9, 2009 (Dkt. No. 63). The additional “responsive declaration” filed on February 25, 2009, is therefore improper. 24 2 25 Plaintiff Howard Steele was voluntarily dismissed from this lawsuit on February 24, 2009. (Dkt. No. 85.) 26 ORDER – 2 1 Plaintiffs. Both former short-term residents3 at Defendants’ facilities, Plaintiffs articulate their CPA 2 cause of action as follows: 3 In particular, Defendants engaged in unfair competition or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the CPA when they represented, through their advertising, warranties, and other express representations, that their skilled nursing home services had benefits or characteristics that they did not actually have. The Defendants further violated the CPA when they falsely represented that their nursing homes were of a particular standard or quality when they were not. Finally, the Defendants violated the CPA when they advertised their nursing home services with the intent not to sell them as advertised, and when, in so doing, they concealed and suppressed facts material to the true characteristics, standards, and quality of their nursing home services. The Defendants’ deceptive practices were specifically designed to induce members of the general public and prospective residents to become residents of their facilities and begin making payments and/or authorize the making of payments on their behalf for the Defendants’ nursing home services. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Id. ¶¶ 100–101.) 11 In the instant motion, filed on December 15, 2008, Defendants move the Court for summary 12 judgment on the claims asserted by Grieb and Gunderson, on grounds that Plaintiffs cannot support 13 several of the elements of their CPA claims. (Mot. 1 (Dkt. No. 30).) Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Continue 14 the hearing of the summary judgment motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), arguing 15 that they needed more time to conduct discovery before they could fully respond to the motion. (Dkt. 16 No. 36.) Nevertheless, they filed a Response opposing the motion for summary judgment on January 5, 17 2009. (Dkt. No. 42.) For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DENIES the motion to continue the 18 hearing and will therefore address both the summary judgment motion and the motion to continue the 19 hearing, in turn, below. 20 // 21 // 22 3 23 24 25 26 Grieb stayed at Bremerton Health & Rehabilitation Center (“Bremerton”), owned by Defendant Fir Lane Terrace Convalescent Center, Inc., for eight days while recuperating from knee replacement surgery. (Am. Compl. ¶ 10 (Dkt. No. 15 at 5); Grieb Dep. 51:13–16 (Dkt. No. 31-2 at 7); Grieb Decl. ¶ 3 (Dkt. No. 46 at 2).) Gunderson stayed at Aldercrest Health & Rehabilitation Center (“Aldercrest”), owned by Defendant Extendicare Homes, for 19 days while she recuperated from back surgery. (Gunderson Decl. ¶ 3 (Dkt. No. 47 at 2); Gunderson Dep. 43:14–15 (Dkt. No. 31-3 at 6).) ORDER – 3 1 2 II. DISCUSSION A. 3 4 Motion for Summary Judgment 1. Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on 5 file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is 6 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). “A ‘material’ fact is one that is relevant 7 to an element of a claim or defense and whose existence might affect the outcome of the suit.” T.W. 8 Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). The moving party 9 bears the initial burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Matsushita Elec. Indus. 10 Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). If the moving party meets this initial burden, then 11 the party opposing the motion must set forth facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See 12 T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 630. The party opposing the motion must “do more than simply show that 13 there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. “In response to 14 a summary judgment motion, . . . the [non-moving party] can no longer rest on . . . mere allegations, but 15 must set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts, . . . which for the purposes of the summary 16 judgment motion will be taken to be true.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992); 17 FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e). If the nonmoving party fails to establish the existence of a genuine issue of 18 material fact, “the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 19 U.S. 317, 323–24 (1986). 20 21 22 Further, “[w]hether a particular action gives rise to a violation of the CPA is reviewable as a question of law.” Sign-O-Lite Signs, Inc. v. DeLaurenti Florists, Inc., 825 P.2d 714, 718 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). 23 2. Analysis 24 Washington’s CPA is intended “to protect the public and foster fair and honest competition.” 25 26 ORDER – 4 1 WASH. REV. CODE § 19.86.920. Initially, the Act authorized only the Attorney General to enforce it; 2 however, the State Legislature amended the CPA in 1971 to provide a private right of action to 3 encourage individual citizens to bring suit to enforce the Act. Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. 4 Safeco Title Ins. Co., 719 P.2d 531, 534 (Wash. 1986). “To establish a CPA violation, the plaintiff must 5 prove five elements: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice that (2) occurs in trade or commerce, (3) 6 impacts the public interest, (4) and causes injury to the plaintiff in her business or property, and (5) the 7 injury is causally linked to the unfair or deceptive act.” Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 200 P.3d 695, 8 698–99 (Wash. 2009) (citing Hangman Ridge, 719 P.2d at 535). “A plaintiff alleging injury under the 9 CPA must establish all five elements.” Id. at 699; see also Johnson v. Camp Auto., Inc., 199 P.3d 491, 10 11 493 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (“The failure to establish any of the elements is fatal to a CPA claim.”). In the instant motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot establish the fourth or fifth 12 elements, injury to their business or property and causation. Further, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ 13 “real complaint in this case relates solely to the non-entrepreneurial aspects of Defendants’ health care 14 business, which does not fall within the scope of the CPA.” (Mot. 2 (Dkt. No. 30).) The Court will 15 address these contentions in turn. 16 17 a. Injury to the Plaintiff In Her Business or Property In Hangman Ridge, the Washington Supreme Court first announced that a plaintiff must prove, 18 as an independent element of a CPA claim, “injury to plaintiff in his or her business or property.” 719 19 P.2d at 535. The court explained that “the injury involved need not be great, but it must be established.” 20 Id. at 539. In subsequent cases, the court has elaborated on the meaning of a CPA injury. The injury 21 must be to the plaintiff’s “business or property;” therefore, “[p]ersonal injuries are not compensable 22 damages under the CPA.” Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass’n v. Fisons Corp., 858 P.2d 1054, 23 1064 (Wash. 1993). Specifically, pain and suffering and emotional distress damages are not 24 compensable CPA injuries. White River Estates v. Hiltbruner, 953 P.2d 796, 797 n.1 (Wash. 1998). 25 26 ORDER – 5 1 2 3 4 Further, the Washington Supreme Court has explained: [N]o monetary damages need be proven, and . . . nonquantifiable injuries, such as loss of goodwill would suffice for this element[.] . . . A loss of use of property which is causally related to an unfair or deceptive act or practice is sufficient injury to constitute the fourth element of a Consumer Protection Act violation. The injury element will be met if the consumer’s property interest or money is diminished because of the unlawful conduct even if the expenses caused by the statutory violation are minimal. 5 6 7 Mason v. Mortgage Am., Inc., 792 P.2d 142, 148 (Wash. 1990) (internal citations omitted). Thus, for example, where a nursing home withheld a refund for two weeks beyond the 30-day 8 deadline permitted by law, thereby depriving the plaintiff of the use of his funds, such an injury 9 constituted a compensable CPA injury. Sorrel v. Eagle Healthcare, Inc., 38 P.3d 1024, 1029 (Wash. Ct. 10 App. 2002). The loss of title to real property is “obviously” an injury to property within the CPA. 11 Mason, 792 P.2d at 149. Although having to defend against a collection action and prosecute a CPA 12 claim is not sufficient injury, being unable to tend to one’s business as one normally would and losing 13 consulting work because of the defendant’s deceptive acts is sufficient, even if the amount of business 14 lost is not quantifiable. Sign-O-Lite Signs, 825 P.2d at 720. Loss of appreciation in real property 15 suffices. Sing v. John L. Scott, Inc., 920 P.2d 589, 598 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996), rev’d on other grounds, 16 948 P.2d 816 (Wash. 1997). 17 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot establish any injury that meets the CPA standard. The 18 Court agrees. At the depositions of Grieb and Gunderson, both Plaintiffs pointed exclusively to 19 emotional distress or psychological harm when asked how they believed they were injured. (Grieb Dep. 20 186:4–24 (Dkt. No. 31-2 at 18); Gunderson Dep. 26:12–22, 207:3–208:15 (Dkt. No. 31-3 at 20).) As 21 noted above, emotional distress damages are not compensable CPA injuries. White River Estates, 953 22 P.2d at 797 n.1. Neither Plaintiff has shown that she suffered pecuniary losses of any sort. Grieb’s stay 23 at the nursing home was paid for by private insurance and resulted in no deductible payment or increase 24 in her premium payments. (Grieb Dep. 49:1–50:17 (Dkt. No. 31-2 at 6–7).) She testified that she would 25 have paid her monthly premium regardless of whether she used any benefits and that therefore, even if 26 ORDER – 6 1 she had not been a resident at one of Defendants’ facilities, she would have paid the same amount. (Id. 2 at 186:21–24.) Likewise, Medicaid and disability benefits covered Gunderson’s stay. (Gunderson Dep. 3 43:25–44:7 (Dkt. No. 31-3 at 6).) She testified that the amount that was paid on her behalf by Medicaid 4 and the Social Security Administration was not affected by the quality of care she received at 5 Defendants’ facility. (Id. at 202:9–203:12.) Therefore, Plaintiffs do not present an injury that could be 6 considered a loss of use of property or a diminishment of funds stemming from Defendants’ allegedly 7 deceptive acts. Cf. Ambach v. French, 173 P.3d 941, 945 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that economic 8 loss due to the increased cost of unnecessary medical care over the cost of more conservative treatment 9 is sufficient for a CPA injury). 10 Plaintiffs argue in their opposition to summary judgment that they had property rights in their 11 insurance and Medicaid and disability benefits and that they lost part of the value of those property 12 rights when they received lesser-quality services than they were promised. (Resp. 2 (Dkt. No. 42).) No 13 Washington court has examined whether such an articulation of injury is sufficient under the CPA. 14 However, even if such a claim were a compensable CPA injury, the Court is not persuaded that 15 Plaintiffs have established such an injury here. They provided no support beyond conclusory allegations 16 in their opposition brief to support this claim. In Benoy v. Simons, the Washington Court of Appeals 17 considered the fact that the plaintiffs failed to provide supporting documentation of their alleged injury, 18 i.e., that their medical bills caused them to file bankruptcy, in affirming the trial court’s dismissal of a 19 CPA claim. 831 P.2d 167, 172 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). Similarly, in a recent unpublished opinion, the 20 Washington Court of Appeals held that where a plaintiff claimed that her car had diminished value 21 because of the defendant’s deceptive acts, she should have submitted to the trial court a report prepared 22 by the auto mechanic to establish her loss at summary judgment. See Reed v. Whitacre, No. 36480-8-II, 23 2008 WL 4635914, at *3 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2008) (reversing the trial court’s denial of the 24 defendant’s summary judgment motion because the trial court permitted the case to proceed even though 25 the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to prove all five elements of a CPA claim). While 26 ORDER – 7 1 Plaintiffs apparently claimed in their initial disclosures that expert testimony would show that Plaintiffs 2 suffered up to a 40% diminution of the value of the services they were entitled to, (Mot. 3 (Dkt. No. 3 30)), Plaintiffs make no such showing at summary judgment. Nor did they ask for more time to procure 4 such evidence, despite their moving the Court for a continuance on other grounds. (See Mot. For 5 Continuance (Dkt. No. 36).) Therefore, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiffs have made a sufficient 6 showing that the CPA injury requirement has been met. 7 Moreover, even if Plaintiffs could show a CPA injury, the Court is not persuaded that they have 8 met the fifth element of a CPA claim, causation. 9 b. 10 Causation “To establish the causation element in a CPA claim, a plaintiff must show that, but for the 11 defendant’s unfair or deceptive practice, the plaintiff would not have suffered an injury.” Carlile v. 12 Harbour Homes, Inc., 194 P.3d 280, 290 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Indoor Billboard/Wash., Inc. v. 13 Integra Telecom of Wash., Inc., 170 P.3d 10, 22 (Wash. 2007)). 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Defendants argue that the undisputed facts as established at Plaintiffs’ depositions shows that Defendants’ advertising and any other alleged misrepresentations actually played no role whatsoever in Plaintiffs’ decisions to stay in Defendants’ nursing homes and therefore could not be the cause of any alleged harm. The Court finds this argument persuasive. Grieb testified that she chose to stay at Bremerton while recuperating from knee surgery because Bremerton was at the top of an alphabetical list of the three postoperative care facilities covered by her insurance company. (Grieb Dep. 66:25–67–3, 68:2–12 (Dkt. No. 31-2 at 9).) She testified that other than choosing Bremerton from the top of the alphabetical list, she did nothing else to investigate Bremerton before selecting it as the facility in which to recover. (Id. at 68:13–16.) She does not believe that she looked up Bremerton or its parent company online and did not collect any information regarding the facility before she decided to stay there. (Id. at 68:13–69:11.) Rather, Grieb testified that her “thought 25 26 ORDER – 8 1 process was that the insurance covered it, and that all three of them [on the alphabetical list] were 2 probably adequate and did the job.” (Id. at 69:11–14.) 3 Likewise, Gunderson testified that she stayed at Aldercrest while recovering from back surgery 4 because (1) it was a facility other than the one in which her stepfather had resided when he passed away 5 a few years prior, (2) it was located in the Edmonds area near her mother, and (3) it accepted Medicaid 6 as a form of payment. (Gunderson Dep. 93:2–16 (Dkt. No. 31-3 at 10).) She testified that she did not 7 look at any brochures, advertisements, or other literature before deciding to stay at Aldercrest. (Id. at 8 93:17–20.) 9 In fact, Plaintiffs appear to have conceded in their opposition to summary judgment brief that 10 they were not influenced by any advertising to select Defendants’ facilities. Rather, they switch the 11 focus of their complaint from Defendants’ advertising to their Admissions Agreement: 12 13 14 15 Defendants’ Admission Agreement, which was uniform throughout Extendicare’s nursing home facilities, contained misrepresentations as to the nature and/or characteristics of their services. The standard form admission agreement provided to each and every resident of an Extendicare facility in the State of Washington includes misrepresentations that the facilities will provide services “as required by law.” (Resp. 2 (Dkt. No. 42).) 16 However, Grieb testified that she saw and signed the admission documents for the first time on 17 the day before she left the facility, November 7, 2007, not before or at the time she arrived on October 18 31, 2007. (Grieb Dep. 23:4–24:22 (Dkt. No. 31-2 at 4).) Therefore, any representations that may or may 19 not have been made in that agreement could not have caused Grieb to choose to stay at Defendants’ 20 facility and could not have been a “but for” cause of any injuries.4 21 There is no evidence that Gunderson ever saw an Admissions Agreement prior to, or during, her 22 23 24 25 26 4 Grieb’s signed Admission Agreement is dated November 7, 2007. (Dkt. No. 43-2 at 10.) Although there also appears to be a version of the Admission Agreement dated October 31, 2007, with Janette Grieb’s name on it, (Dkt. No. 43-2 at 21), Ms. Grieb does not claim that she actually signed it, stating in her declaration that it contains only her “purported signature.” (Grieb Decl. ¶ 6 (Dkt. No. 46 at 2).) ORDER – 9 1 stay at Aldercrest. Nowhere does she make this claim. In her Declaration, she states only that she has 2 read, at an unspecified time, a standard, unsigned, version of the agreement that was produced in this 3 litigation. (Gunderson Decl. ¶ 5 (Dkt. No. 47).) Defendants have asserted that despite diligent efforts, 4 they have been unable to find an Admissions Agreement signed by or associated with Gunderson and 5 they believe that she was never presented with one. (Duffy Decl. ¶ 28 (Dkt. No. 61 at 11).) Even if she 6 did receive an Admissions Agreement, her testimony shows that she did not consider any of Defendants’ 7 representations in deciding whether to stay at Defendants’ facility: 8 Q. And just so I’m clear, you didn’t look at any brochures, advertisement, literature of any sort before deciding to go to Aldercrest? A. No. 9 10 11 (Gunderson Dep. 93:17–20 (Dkt. No. 31-3 at 10).) Plaintiff identifies no representation by Defendants 12 that influenced her decision to stay at Aldercrest. As such, she cannot show that any representation by 13 Defendants was a “but for” cause of her alleged injuries. 14 Plaintiffs also contend in their opposition brief that they were not told about Defendants’ history 15 of violating State health statutes and regulations as cited by the Department of Social and Health 16 Services, and that if they had been aware of these violations, they would not have selected Defendants’ 17 facilities. (Resp. 18 (Dkt. No. 42).) However, Washington “cases establish a general duty on the part of 18 a seller to disclose facts material to a transaction when the facts are known to the seller but not easily 19 discoverable by the buyer.” Griffith v. Centex Real Estate Corp., 969 P.2d 486, 492 (Wash. Ct. App. 20 1998). Defendants state that they satisfied any duty to disclose by making their regulatory history easily 21 available to Plaintiffs and the general public pursuant to federal and state law. (Reply 6 (Dkt. No. 65).) 22 Plaintiffs’ own expert, a registered nurse licensed to practice in the State of California, has testified that 23 Defendants’ history of deficiencies is reported on the publicly available resource of a United States 24 government website. (Meggers Decl. ¶¶ 6–7 (Dkt. No. 45 at 3).) Therefore, the Court is not persuaded 25 that Defendants’ citation history was not easily discoverable by Plaintiffs, had they chosen to look for 26 ORDER – 10 1 it.5 Therefore, Plaintiffs cannot show that Defendants’ alleged non-disclosure of their citation history 2 was a “but for” cause of any alleged injuries. 3 Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden at summary judgment of 4 showing that material issues of fact exist as to whether they can prove either the causation or injury 5 elements of their CPA claim, the Court must GRANT Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 6 Against Plaintiffs Grieb and Gunderson. (Dkt. No. 30.)6 7 B. 8 “If a party opposing the motion [for summary judgment] shows by affidavit that, for specified Motion to Continue the Hearing 9 reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) deny the motion; (2) 10 order a continuance to enable affidavits to be obtained, depositions to be taken, or other discovery to be 11 undertaken; or (3) issue any other just order.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(f). Plaintiffs asked the Court to 12 continue the hearing on Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion only to enable them to “uncover all 13 representations made by the Defendants’ representatives during the admissions process.” (Mot. to 14 Continue 3 (Dkt. No. 36).) Because such discovery is irrelevant to the injury element of Plaintiffs’ CPA 15 claim and because both Plaintiffs testified that the factors they considered in deciding whether to stay at 16 Defendants’ facilities did not include any representations by Defendants, a continuance would not assist 17 Plaintiffs in opposing summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request for a 18 continuance. (Dkt. No. 36.) 19 // 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 5 Moreover, both Plaintiffs have testified that they did not do any investigating before deciding to stay in Defendants’ facilities. (Grieb dep. 68:13–69:17 (Dkt. No. 31-2 at 9); Gunderson Dep. 94:10–95:2 (Dkt. No. 31-3 at 11).) 6 Notwithstanding the Court’s findings as to the insufficiency of Plaintiffs’ CPA claims, the Court is concerned by Plaintiffs’ allegations that they did not receive the quality of care they deserved at Defendants’ facilities. Generally, actions against nursing homes for failure to follow the accepted standard of care are more properly brought as negligence claims pursuant to Washington Revised Code section 7.70.040. It may be that Plaintiffs had or have stronger claims pursuing that avenue of relief. ORDER – 11 1 IV. 2 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 3 Against Plaintiffs Grieb and Gunderson (Dkt. No. 30) and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue the 4 Hearing Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) (Dkt. No. 36). Because there are no 5 remaining named Plaintiffs, the Court DISMISSES the complaint and DIRECTS the Clerk to close the 6 case. 7 8 SO ORDERED this 24th day of March, 2009. A 9 10 11 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER – 12
]]>
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.
