Motion in Opposition to the Voluntary Withdrawal as Named Plaintiffs of Barbara Leek Wesson, Rosa Keeton and Eddie Gray

     [||0a013dcd-d533-42ff-9292-e549f316bf1e||] IN THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

BERNICE TERRY, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

VS. No. H 76-373 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et :al., 

N
t
?
 
®
t
 

a
t
 

u
n
’
 

N
a
t
?
 

a
t
’
 

u
e
l
 

“
a
e
 

s
t
 

Defendants 

RICHARD GORDON HATCHER, et al., 

Plaintiffs 

VS. No. H 77-154 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al.) 

N
t
?
 

S
w
?
 

N
a
 

w
a
 

n
t
”
 

a
s
t
?
 

N
t
?
 

u
t
 

“
m
t
?
 

s
t
h
 

Defendants 

MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE VOLUNTARY WITHDRAWAL 
AS NAMED PLAINTIFFS OF BARBARA LEEK WESSON, 

ROSA KEETON AND EDDIE GRAY 

  

  

  

Come now the defendants, Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc. 

and Denis E. Ribordy, and file their objections to the voluntary 

withdrawal of Barbara Leek Wesson, Rosa Keeton and Eddie 

Gray as named plaintiffs herein and move the Court to require 

these individual plaintiffs to continue as named plaintiffs 

and in support thereof state as follows: 

1. That Barbara Leek Wesson, Rosa Keeton and Eddie 

Gray were named as representative plaintiffs in the purportedly 

class action filed against defendant, Methodist Hospital 

of Gary, Inc., as Civil Cause No. H 76-373. 

2. That, pursuant to Notice of Deposition upon Oral 

Examination the defendant took the deposition of plaintiffs, 

Barbara Leek Wesson, on February 17, and March 1, 1977, 

of Rosa Keeton April 11, 1977, and of Eddie Gray on April 

12, 1977. Furthermore, that the defendant, Methodist Hospital 

 



  

of Gary, Inc., incurred significant expenditures for the 

recording of said depositions, the attendance and preparation 

of counsel at said depositions and for various expenses 

attendant to said depositions. 

3.: That during the course of said depositions the 

three representative plaintiffs named herein disclosed that 

they conceived of, organized and filed the suit identified 

as Civil Cause No. H 76-373, as is more fully described 

in the attached quotations from said depositions, marked 

"Exhibit A" for identification and made a part hereof by 

reference. 

4. That while defendants continue to assert that the 

named individuals are inappropriate representatives of the 

class defined in plaintiffs' Complaint, defendants assert 

that the named individuals are necessary parties to a full 

and just adjudication of the allegations raised in plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, in Civil Cause No. H 76-373 inasmuch as the motive 

and objectives that gave rise to the plaintiffs’ 2soi dion 

to bring this action are personal to the named individuals 

and are not common to the purported class as a whole. Said 

motive and objectives are expressed in the excerpts from 

the depositions described heretofore and set forth in the 

attached "Exhibit B" made a part hereof by reference. 

5. That the named individuals have neither asked for 

nor moved for leave of Court to withdraw as named plaintiffs 

herein but rather have sought to do so by means of simple 

notification filed with this Court on June 10, 1977. 

6. That action requested by the defendants is within 

the Court's discretionary powers as defined in Federal Rule 

of Criminal Procedure, Rule 23(d) (5). 

we 

 



  

WHEREFORE, defendants object to the voluntary withdrawal 

of Barbara Leek Wesson, Rosa Keeton and Eddie Gray as named 

plaintiffs herein and respectfully move the Court to require 

the named individuals to continue as representative plaintiffs. 

HODGES, DAVIS, GRUENBERG, COMPTON & SAYERS 

TTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, METHODIST HOSPITAL 

OF GARY, INC. AND DENIS E. RIBORDY 

BP tras DH hr 
BRUCE E. 0) 
  

       

       BY:      

  

HUSSEY 

5525 Broadway 
Gary, Indiana 46410 
Ph. 981-2557 

 



  

"EXHIBIT A" 

DEPOSITION OF BARBARA LEEK WESSON 
FEBRUARY 17, 1977 

MR. SAYERS Q. So you and Doctor Holiday had some fundamental 
differences about where this building was? 

MRS. WESSON A. And what purpose it was going to serve. 

oe. And you didn't file a lawsuit because 
of the differences, you filed the lawsuit because the negotiations 
about the differences broke down? 

A. No. The negotiations appeared to be 
not in good faith. We had met - - . 

0. So, you decided to follow the suit? 

A. We decided not that way, as irrational. 

Q. Tell me how you decided? 

A . You just be quiet for a minute and let 
me tell it. 

OQ. I can't ask the questions and be quiet. 

A. You just be quiet, I may answer some 
things that you don't have to ask. 

0. You might. 

A. But at any rate the decision was not 
made on any one thing, it was a combination of things of 
which the discussions - - . 

OD. Who made the decision? 

A. I think I stated it first. 

0. You decided, okay, and then you - - 

A. That, yes - - . 

Q. - — secured the concurrence of others? 

A. Yes. 

kde fe er Te ale ele ale tile lint Lol inde 

MR. SAYERS Q. You have not? 

MRS. WESSON A. No. 

Q. You haven't looked, you've looked at 
three hospitals and sued one of them, is that right? 

A. I have. 

OQ. Pardon me? 

A. I have. 

 



  

0. Who else? 

A. Doctor Holiday. 

Q. I did discuss it with the Model Cities 

Health Task Force and they apparently supported the idea 

and as a result Mrs. Keeton, Mr. Gray ané Mrs, Terry — - 

. Joined as Plaintiffs? 

A. That's tight. 

(Dp. 139-1. 25; 128.11, 1-25 
12 11, 1-3» Dp. 128 11. 2-17; 
PD. 13011. 18-25, 131.11, 1-9) 

 



  

"PXORIBIT BY 

DEPOSITION OF BARBARA LEEK WESSON 

FEBRUARY 17, 1977 

MR. SAYERS 0. What gave rise to the lawsuit? 

MRS. WESSON A. I think what gave rise to the lawsuit 
initially was a breakdown, in my opinion, of any kind 
of legitimate negotiations or discussions in the first 

place. 

Q. About what? 

A. About the site, the building. 

Kiki kkk CE RRR 

MRS. WESSON A. Mr. Glesne and Mr. Ribordy and Doctor 
Holiday and myself had met on at least two or three’ 
occasions to discuss the total application for the 
eight point, whatever. One of the discussions centered 
on the location of the facility. There are two different 
opinions as to where the location of this facility should 
go. 

ide ok kak Ik ee fe 

MR. SAYERS 3 Who else did you discuss this lawsuit with? 

MRS. WESSON A. I've discussed it with the City Administra- 
tion in the form of the Mayor and the - - 

Qe. Who? 

: - - #he Council, City Council. 

. The whole Council? 

: Yes. 

A 

Q 

A 

O. The Mayor personally? 

A. Yes. 

Q . Any other members of the City Administra- 
tion? 

A. No, not personally. 

Qe. What were those discussions about? What 
did you say and what did they say? 

A. The Mayor questioned what was the 
problem about that brought this about and I explained 
to him my point of view. 

 



  

Q. What did you explain to him, the break- 
down of communications? 

A. What I tried to explain to you. 

D. Pardon me? 

A. I explained to him my position on this 
whole thing. 

Q. That you've just outlined to me? 

A. Not just as I outlined it to you, I was 
allowed a little bit more time to give it my own factors. 

0. What did he say, the Mayor? 

A. He asked if I thought there was any way 
to avoid a lawsuit, if I thought that was feasible. 

0. What did you say? 

A. I said I didn't think there was any way 
to avoid a lawsuit and I thought it was feasible. 

Q. When you say you thought it was feasible, 
you mean you thought the lawsuit was feasible? 

A. I thought this method of seeking some kind 
of satisfaction, that was the way to go. 

D. What satisfaction did you hope to achieve? 

A. To be able to have the Methodist Hospital 
share with us their long range plans, just what they 
really were, some commitment on both parts. 

Q. One of the purposes of the lawsuit is to 
learn that long range plans? 

A. Yes. 

De. What other purposes? 

A. And would hope that there would be some 
commitment of joint planning in the City of Gary between 
all health providers which would include Mercy Hospital 
as well as the Medical Center and any other major health 
iprovider, 

Q. What other purposes were there for the 
lawsuit? 

A. That we would come out with a delivery 
system that would be beneficial to the citizens of 
Gary and hopefully not compel a detriment to any of the 
health providers and it being implemented. 

 



  

0. How is cutting off a loan guarantee 
and an interest subsidy going to change the delivery 
system? 

A. I don't know if they're cutting it off 
or changing it. 

9. Pardon me? 

A. That is not the purpose to cut it off 
and change anything but if that is the carrot or the 
incentive or motivation that would bring Methodist to 
sit down honestly and take a look at the health care 
system in Gary - -~ . 

. Do you want to teach them a lesson? 

Ld No. 

Q 

A 

0. What do you mean about this care? 

A. I said motivation, incentive. 

0 . You were seeking a motivation, incentive 
for Methodist Hospital? 

A, To honestly sit down. 

Q. To share their long range plans, to sit 
down? 

A. Jointly plan services for Gary. 

Q. Health services, that's what you wanted 
to do? 

A. That it will actually go into 
implementation. 

0. And if cutting off a loan guarantee, 
cutting off an interest subsidy is a tool that will 
achieve this meaningful participation, then your suit 
will be successful? 

A. As far as I am concerned. 

(Pp. 116 11. 24~25, pb. 11711. 1-5, 
15-23; pp. 13% 11,:10-25,°132 11, 1-25, 
331%. 1-25,:134 11. 1-25, 135 11. 1-8) 

Note - A copy of the proposed "Agreement" is attached to 
defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss 

filed in Civil Action No. H 77-154. 

ne 

 



  

IN THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

BERNICE TERRY, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

VS. No. H 76-373 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al., 

Defendants 

N
a
a
t
?
 

“
a
t
?
 
N
l
 

as
t”

? 
N
u
”
 

S
a
a
t
 

N
a
t
 

S
i
t
?
 

“w
at
? 

a
u
t
 

RICHARD GORDON HATCHER, et al., 

Plaintiffs 

vs. No. B 77-154 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et. al.,, 

N
i
?
 

N
t
”
 

N
a
a
?
 

w
i
?
 

a
 

u
a
?
 

w
t
?
 

i
?
 

“
w
a
?
 

n
u
e
?
 

Defendants 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I hereby certify that a copy of defendants, Methodist 
Hospital of Gary, Inc. and Denis E. Ribordy's Motion in 
Opposition to the Voluntary Withdrawal as Named Plaintiffs of 
Barbara Leek Wesson, Rosa Keeton and Eddie Gray filed in 
Cause Numbers H 76-373 and H 77-154 was served by United 
States mail, express mail, postage prepaid on the 7th day of 
September, 1977, on counsel of record as follows: 

Rebecca L. Ross, Esq. 
Department of Justice 
10th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D. C. 

Marvin G. Garvin and Edward L. Koven 
Regional Attorney & General Attorney 

Department of Health, Education and Welfare 
300 South Wacker Drive, 18th Floor 
Chicago, Illinois 

Fred W. Grady 
Assistant United States Attorney 
United States District Court 
Northern District of Indiana 
Federal Building, 502 State Street 
Hammond, Indiana 46325 

Attorneys for Defendant Secretary of Health, 
Education and Welfare 

 



  

* » 

Jack Greenberg, Beth J. Lief, 
Melvin R. Leventhal 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 

Julian Allen 
2009 Broadway 
Gary, Indiana 46407 

Marilyn G. Rose 
Christine B. Hickman 
1751 N Street, N.W. 

Washington, D. C. 20036 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Terry, Hatcher, Page, 

Metro Corp., Inc, 

Theodore Sendak 
Attorney General 
State House 
Indianapolis, Indiana 46320 

Attorney for State Defendant 

Anthony DeBonis 
720 West Chicago Avenue 
East Chicago, Indiana 

Attorney for Kiplan Kaplan, as Executive 
Director of the Northern Indiana Comprehensive 

Health Systems Agency, Inc. 

HODGES, DAVIS, GRUENBERG, COMPTON 

& SAYERS 
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, METHODIST 
HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC. and DENIS 

E. RIBORDY     

     5525 Broadway 
Gary, Indiana 46410 
Ph. 981-2557 [||0a013dcd-d533-42ff-9292-e549f316bf1e||]