Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

IN RE OTERO COUNTY HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC., 11-11-13686 JR (2012)

Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico Number: inbco20120406565 Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 06, 2012
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE THE STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL ROBERT H. JACOBVITZ, Bankruptcy Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion of Quorum Health Resources, LLC to Strike the Stipulation of Dismissal ("Motion to Strike Stipulation of Dismissal"). See Docket No. 21. The issues raised in the Motion to Strike Stipulation of Dismissal are inter-related with the issues raised in the Motion of Quorum Health Resources, LLC to Intervene as Plaintiff Pursuant to Rule 7054 of the Fede
More

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE THE STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

ROBERT H. JACOBVITZ, Bankruptcy Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion of Quorum Health Resources, LLC to Strike the Stipulation of Dismissal ("Motion to Strike Stipulation of Dismissal"). See Docket No. 21. The issues raised in the Motion to Strike Stipulation of Dismissal are inter-related with the issues raised in the Motion of Quorum Health Resources, LLC to Intervene as Plaintiff Pursuant to Rule 7054 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure ("Motion to Intervene"). See Docket No. 8. The Court held a final hearing on the Motion to Strike Stipulation of Dismissal and on the Motion to Intervene on April 2, 2012 and took the matters under advisement.

The Court has denied the Motion to Intervene for the reasons set forth in the Order Denying Motion of Quorum Health Resources, LLC to Intervene as Plaintiff Pursuant to Rule 7024 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. See Docket No. 31. A pending motion to intervene does not automatically preclude the original parties to the lawsuit from agreeing to settle.1 The relevant inquiry is whether Quorum Health Resources, LLC's reasons for objecting to the Stipulation of Dismissal would be sufficient to constitute an interest requiring intervention. See Alternative Research and Development Foundation v. Veneman, 262 F.3d 406, 411 (D.C.Cir. 2001)(observing that the relevant inquiry was whether party's "concerns about the terms of the stipulated dismissal were sufficient to constitute an interest requiring intervention."). Quorum Health Resources, LLC's request to intervene has been denied. Consequently, its Motion to Strike Stipulation of Dismissal should also be denied.

WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Strike Stipulation of Dismissal is DENIED.

FootNotes


1. See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Synthon Laboratories, Inc., 538 F.Supp.2d 944, 947 (E.D.Va. 2008)(observing that, generally, parties can voluntarily dismiss their case "even if a motion to intervene is pending and the potential intervenor objects[ ]" but suggesting that, in some instances, the court should invoke equitable principles to prevent the stipulating parties from prejudicing the potential intervenor's rights)(citation omitted).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer