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.

Frank v. Cascade Healthcare Community, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

November 5, 2013

MINNY FRANK, Plaintiff,
v.
CASCADE HEALTHCARE COMMUNITY, INC. dba ST. CHARLES MEDICAL CENTER; EDWARD PALMER, MD; REBECCA TIMMS; SCOTT NAMANNY; THE CITY OF BEND; BEND POLICE DEPARTMENT; and CENTRAL OREGON EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, LLC; Defendants.

Minny Frank Bend, Oregon. Pro se plaintiff

Robert E. Franz, Jr., Law Office of Robert E. Franz, Jr., Springfield, Oregon. Attorney for defendants Scott Namanny and Ian Macdonnel.

OPINION AND ORDER

ANN AIKEN, District Judge.

Defendants Scott Namanny and Ian Macdonnel move to compel plaintiff Minny Frank's deposition testimony. Previously dismissed defendant Nichole Ryan also moves to prevent plaintiff from deposing her. Additionally, plaintiff requests leave to file a fourth amended complaint. For the reasons set forth below, Namanny's and Macdonnel's motion is granted in part and denied in part, Ryan's motion is denied, and plaintiff's motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

The history of this matter is well known to all parties and participants. It will therefore only be repeated to the extent necessary to provide context for the present motions.

In January 2010, plaintiff was brought to the emergency department ("ED") of St. Charles Medical Center ("SCMC") by Officers Namanny and Macdonnel following a 911 call from her husband, Lon Frank, in which he reported that she was suicidal, intoxicated, and a danger to herself. Upon admittance to the ED, plaintiff was evaluated by Rebecca Timms, a licensed clinical social worker, and Edward Palmer, an ED physician. Palmer determined, in conferral with Timms and Dr. Lakovics, the admitting physician, that plaintiff was a potential harm to herself and/or others and initiated an emergency psychiatric hold in SCMC's psychiatric emergency services ("PES") unit.

Pursuant to hospital policy, all PES unit admittees are required to undergo a skin-check and wear hospital scrubs. SCMC employees notified plaintiff of this policy and requested that she abide by it. Plaintiff refused; after being provided with several warnings and opportunities to voluntarily change herself, plaintiff was physically restrained by Namanny, Macdonnel, and SCMC staff while a female nursing assistant performed a skin-check and replaced plaintiff's existing clothes with hospital scrubs. Thereafter, plaintiff was transported to the PES unit, wherein she was admitted and administered anti-anxiety and sedative medications. Plaintiff remained in the PES unit until the following morning, when she was discharged into husband (Frank's) care.

On December 9, 2011, plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court. On April 16, 2012, plaintiff moved to file an amended complaint; on May 16, 2012, plaintiff moved to file a second amended complaint. On June 26, 2012, this Court granted plaintiff's motions and she subsequently filed her second amended complaint. On August 6, 2012, plaintiff moved for summary judgment against Palmer. On August 27, 2012, Palmer filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

On September 21, 2012, after receiving leave from the Court, plaintiff filed her third amended complaint against the Bend Police Department, the City of Bend, Namanny, Macdonnel, SCMC, Central Oregon Emergency Physicians, LLC ("COEP"), Palmer, Timms, Ryan, Patricia Violet, Christine Huffman, Penni Lancaster, Randal Mcbride, Jonathan Beutler, and Justin Nelson, alleging negligence, negligence per se, negligent infliction of emotional distress, reckless infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and deprivations of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On October 29, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment against COEP, SCMC, and Palmer. That same day, COEP, SCMC, Palmer, Timms, the City of Bend, and the Bend Police Department also moved for summary judgment. On February 11, 2013, with leave from the Court, Ryan, Violet, Huffman, Lancaster, Mcbride, Beutler, and Nelson filed a motion for summary judgment.

On March 6, 2013, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of SCMC, COEP, Palmer, Timms, the City of Bend, the Bend Police Department, Ryan, Violet, Huffman, Lancaster, Mcbride, Beutler, and Nelson. As a result, the remaining claims were asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Namanny and Macdonnel. On March 12, 2013, the Court denied plaintiff's motion to reconsider its March 6, 2013 decision. On March 18, 2013, plaintiff filed a Fed.R.Civ.P. 54 (b) motion for entry of judgment concerning the previously dismissed claims and defendants. On April 5, 2013, before this Court ruled on plaintiff's Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) motion, plaintiff filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit; accordingly, the Court denied plaintiff's Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) motion as moot. On May 20, 2013, the Ninth Circuit dismissed plaintiff's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

On July 1, 2013, plaintiff filed a "Motion for Relief Pursuant to FRCP 56(d), " challenging the evidentiary support that this Court relied on in issuing its summary judgment opinion, in part because the dismissed defendants allegedly engaged in spoilation of the evidence. On July 3, 2013, this Court denied plaintiff's Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d) motion. On August 29, 2013, this Court granted plaintiff's unopposed motion for an extension of discovery and pretrial deadlines, setting November 4, 2013 as the discovery deadline, and December 4, 2013 as the deadline for dispositive motions.

On October 8, 2013, Namanny and Macdonnel filed a motion to compel plaintiff's and Frank's deposition testimony. On October 14, 2013, Ryan moved for a protective order and to quash plaintiff's subpoena for deposition. On October ...


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.