Goold v. Dreyer
4:25-cv-05025
| E.D. Wash. | Jun 23, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs allege harm from unnecessary or inadequate neurosurgeries performed by Drs. Dreyer and Elskens at Providence St. Mary Medical Center in Walla Walla, Washington, driven by an incentive-based compensation scheme between 2013 and 2018.
- A 2022 qui tam False Claims Act settlement resolved state and federal claims that Providence fraudulently billed government programs for these surgeries, but Providence admitted no liability.
- Plaintiffs filed three related cases (Angulo, Sells, and Goold) in federal court, asserting claims including medical negligence, lack of informed consent, consumer protection act violations, vicarious liability, and unjust enrichment, among others.
- Plaintiffs seek class certification for individuals who were patients affected by these alleged practices under two proposed classes (Providence Class & MultiCare Class).
- The court considered motions to dismiss or stay by defendants, alongside procedural motions regarding material facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consolidation of related actions | Cases share common facts/law and can be efficiently resolved together, especially class certification. | Possible prejudice, case differences, and inefficiency; oppose consolidation for all purposes. | Cases consolidated for class certification only. |
| Motion to Dismiss or Stay (Sells) | Claims have legal basis; class allegations and facts sufficient to proceed. | Move to dismiss/stay for lack of merits or procedural grounds. | Motion denied. |
| Motion to Dismiss (Goold) | Case properly before court; allegations sufficient for claims pleaded. | Seek dismissal as duplicative/first-to-file or for failing to state a claim. | Motion denied. |
| Striking Defendants’ Material Facts | Defendants’ filings include inappropriate or extraneous facts; request to strike. | Filings proper; respond that material facts are relevant for motion consideration. | Plaintiffs' request to strike denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garity v. APWU Nat’l Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2016) (upholding broad discretion of district courts to consolidate related actions for efficiency)
- Investor’s Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989) (consolidation appropriate where actions involve common questions of law or fact)