Notice of Motion and Motion of Plaintiffs to Consolidate with Order

     [||2cf7ec60-b4ca-4814-b28a-1b267fd43a56||] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

  

BERNICE TERRY, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Ve : No. H 76-373 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al,, 

Defendants. 

  

  

RICHARD GORDON HATCHER, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Ve No. H 77-154 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al., 

Defendants. 

  

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS TO CONSOLIDATE 

THE ACTIONS IN TERRY v. METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al., No. H 76-373, and HATCHER, et al. v. METHOCIST 

HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., et al., No. H 77-154 

  

  

  

Please take notice that plaintiffs in the above-entitled 

actions respectfully move this Court pursuant to Rule 42 (a) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to consolidate the above- 

entitled actions on the grounds that the two actions involve 

common questions of law and fact, that consolidation will not 

prejudice the defendants in the actions, and that consolidation       
 



  

will promote efficiency and economy in both proceedings. 

Respectfully submitted, 

JACK {GREENBER® i 
BETH J. LIEF 

MELVYN R. LEVENTHAL 

10 Columbus Circle 

New York, New York 10019 

  

JULIAN ALLEN 

2009 Broadway 

Gary, Indiana 46407 

MARILYN G. ROSE 

CHRISTINE B. HICKMAN 

1751 XN Street, N. W. 

washington, D. C. 20036 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Terry, 

Hatcher, Page, Metro Corp., Inc. 

      
 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

  

BERNICE TERRY, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Ve No. B 76-373 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al., 

Defendants. 

  

  

RICHARD GORDON HATCHER, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

ve. No, H 77-154 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al., 

Defendants. 

[1
] 

  

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS 

TO CONSOLIDATE THE CASES OF TERRY v. METHODIST 

HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., et al., AND 

HATCHER, et al. v. METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, 

INC., et al. 

  

  

  

  

I 

The Amended Complaint in Terry v. Methodist Hospital of 
  

Gary, Inc., et al., Cause No.H76-373 and the Complaint in 
  

Hatcher, et al. v. Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc., et al., 
  

Cause No. H 77-154 both challenge the existence, perpetuation, 

and expansion of segregated and discriminatory facilities oper- 

ated by Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc., and the approval of and       
 



  
  

granting of federal financial assistance to said facilities. Both 

suits arise out of an identical factual situation: the construc- 

tion and proposed expansion of Broadway Methodist Hospital, a 

facility which is operated by defendant Methodist Hospital, was 

constructed with federal funds, and was approved by the United 

States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The named de- 

fendants in Terry v. Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc., are also 
  

named defendants in Hatcher v. Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc.: 
  

the causes of action in Terry v. Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc., 
  

are also causes of action in Hatcher v. Methodist Hospital of 
  

Gary, Inc.; and all discovery and presentation of proof in Terry 
  

will be identical to discovery and proof in Hatcher. Because of 

the obvious relationship between the two cases, plaintiffs in both 

actions move to consolidate on the grounds that consolidation will 

eliminate duplication of efforts, will promote efficiency and 

economy of the Court and the parties, and will cause no prejudice 

to the defendants in either action. 

Iz. 

Rule 42 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: 

"When actions involving a common question 
of law or fact are pending before the 
court, it may order a joint hearing or 
trial of any or all the matters in issue 
in the actions; it may order all the 
actions consolidated; and it may make 
such orders concerning proceedings 
therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary 
costs or delay." 

As the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated in Ikerd v. 
  

Iapworth, 435 F.2d 197, 204 (7th Cir. 1970), Rule 42 (a) promotes 
  

"the policy that considerations of judicial economy strongly favor 

resolution of all claims growing out of one event." Judicial   
  

 



  
    

economy dictates that the above-entitled actions be consolidated. 

It is undisputable that the events, facts and legal issues 

in Terry v. Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc., are the same as 
  

those in Hatcher v. Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc. Plaintiffs 
  

in both actions contend that the actions of defendant Methodist 

Hospital of Gary, Inc., in the construction and expansion of 

Broadway Methodist Hospital has had the purpose and effect of 

creating a segregated, discriminatory health care system that dis- 

criminates against the minority residents of Gary, Indiana. In 

both actions plaintiffs contend that governmental officials who 

approved the construction and financing of Broadway Methodist 

Hospital with federal funds violated the rights of plaintiffs 

under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In both cases, 

discovery and proof will include, inter alia (1) a comparison of 
  

the racial populations, and conditiéns at Gary Methodist Hospital;g 

(2) a study of the nature and extent of defendant HEW's actions 

in approving the grant of federal funds to Methodist Hospital of 

Gary, Inc., for the construction and expansion of Broadway 

Methodist Hospital and its consideration or failure to consider 

civil rights violations by Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc.; and 

(3) the injury suffered by plaintiffs and the class they repre- 

sent in receiving segregated, discriminatory services. If the 

two cases are not consolidated, there will be extensive and un- 

necessary duplication of identical evidence. As the Court stated 

in Madigan, Inc. v. GooGmeén, 57 P.R.D, 512, 514 (W.D. Ill, 1972): 
  

"The consolidation of these cases 

will not only result in a sub- 

stantial saving of time for this 
Court and the litigants, but will 

also prevent needless duplication 
of testimony by experts, . . . of- 

fials, and others." 

-3=   
 



  
    

Nor will defendants be prejudiced by consolidation. Dis- 

covery is at beginning stages in both lawsuits, so consolidation 

will not delay or hinder progress in either action. Moreover, 

as both actions require presentation of identical proof, the 

issues in either case will not be complicated by consolidation. 

While state and local agencies are named as defendants in Hatcher 

v. Methodist Hospital, identity of parties is not required under 

/ 
Rule 42(a) and proof and discovery concerning their review and 

  

recommendations as to the construction and proposed expansion of 

2/ 
Broadway Methodist Hospital is relevant to both actions. 

The fact that the Complaint in Hatcher v. Methodist Hospital 
  

includes causes of action not contained in Terry v. Methodist 
  

Hospital does not lessen the desirability of consolidation. In 
  

United States v, City of Chicago, 385 FPF. Supp. 540 (N.D. Ill. 
  

1974), the district court consolidated three suits which alleged 

discriminatory practices by the City of Chicago police department. 

Although all the actions did not contain allegations under the 

same federal statutes, the court held that consolidation was 

proper because all the cases would have to be proven essentially 

by the same statistical and testimonial evidence and that, in 

any event, the same question of law need not apply to all causes 

  

1l/ United States v. Enawer, 149 P.24 519 (7th Cir. 1945); 

Madigan, Inc. v. Goodman, supra. 
  

  

2/ Defendant HEW admits in its Memorandum of Law in Support of 
Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, 

that it relies on local and state agency recommendations.   
 



  
    

as long as there exists at least one common, central question. 

Tn these actions, the issues of discrimination against the minor- 

ity residents in health care services by Methodist Hospital of 

Gary, Inc., and the violation of plaintiffs' rights under Title 

vi of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 20004, by local, 

state and federal agencies charged with its enforcement in hospi- 

tal facilities, is at the core of both lawsuits. 

| 111 

In sum, consolidation of the above-entitled actions will 

avoid costly and unnecessary duplication of efforts by counsel 

and the courts, will further the strong policy interests of ju- 

dicial economy and will prejudice no party to these actions. 

For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs respectfully re- 

quest that the motion to consolidate be granted. 

Respectfully submitted, 

h Lh 1 Aisi 
JACK GREENBERG 

MELVYN R. LEVENTHAL 

BETH J. LIEF 

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 

  

   



  
    

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

  

e
o
 

BERNICE TERRY, et al,, 

Plaintiffs, 

Vv. No. H 76-373 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al,, 

Defendants. 

  

  

RICHARD GORDON HATCHER, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Vv Ka . 

No. H 77-154 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al., ; 

Defendants. 

  

ORDER 

Plaintiffs in the above-entitled actions, by counsel, having 

filed a motion pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure to consolidate the causes of Terry v. Methodist 
  

Hospital of Gary, Inc., et al., No. H 76-373, and Hatcher, et al. | 
  

  

v. Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc., et al., Na H 77-154, and it 
  

appearing that there are common questions of fact, proof, dis- 

covery and law, and that consolidation is in the interests of 

  

 



    

economy and efficiency and will not prejudice the parties, and 

the Court being duly advised, it is 

ORDERED that the causes of Terry v. Methodist Hospital of 
  

cary, Inc., et al., No. H 76-373 and Hatcher, et al. v., Methodist 
  

  

Hospital of Gary, Inc., et al., No. H 77-154 be consolidated for 
  

all purposes. 

  

United States District Judge 

  
  

 



  

Certificate of Service 
  

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF 

MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS TO CONSOLIDATE THE ACTIONS IN TERRY Vv. 
  

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., et al., No. H 76-373 and 
  

HATCHER, et al. v. METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., et al., No. 
  

H 77-154, MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION AND ORDER was 

served by United States mail, postage prepaid, on the 10th day of 

June, 1977, on counsel for defendants as follows: 

REBECCA L. ROSS, ESQ. 

Department of Justice 

10th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Washington, D. C. 

MARVIN G. GARVIN & 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 

HODGES, DAVIS, GRUENBERG, COMPTON & SAYERS 
BRUCE E. SAYERS, ESQ. 

5525 Broadway 

Gary, Indiana 46401 

- Attorneys for Defendant Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc. 

WILLIAM T. PAYNTER, M. D. 
State Health Commissioner 

Indiana State Board of Health 

1330 West Michigan Street 

Indianapolis, Indiana 46206 

JAMES WHITE 

Director, Division of Hospital and Institutional 

Services 

Indiana State Board of Health 

1330 West Michigan Street 

Indianapolis, Indiana 46206       
 



  
    

DAVID J. EDWARDS, M.D. 

Director, Health Facilities, Services and Review 

Development Bureau 

Indiana State Board of Health 

1330 west Michigan Street 

Indianapolis, Indiana 46206 

KIPTON KAPLAN 

Executive Director, Northern Indiana Comprehensive 

Health Services Agency, Inc. 

900 East Colfax Avenue 

South Bend, Indiana 46617 

  

Attorney for Plaintiffs [||2cf7ec60-b4ca-4814-b28a-1b267fd43a56||]