Moody v. Lord Chamerblain, Inc., No. Cv 00091621 (Jun. 6, 2001)

Related Cases

Lord v. Customized Consulting Specialty, Inc.
Ruth Ann Bryson, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Patty Husband Gary Chambers, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Patty Chambers and as Guardian and Next Friend of Tricia Chambers Janet Esser, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Richard Esser and as Guardian and Next Friend of Richard Esser, III and Shannon Esser Lisa Hamilton, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Patricia Gabbard Kim Baker, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Patricia Gabbard Judith Morey, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Kenneth Morey Robert Morey, Individually Carla Phillips, Individually and as of the Estate of Leroy O. Phillips and as Guardian and Next Friend for Craig Arthur Phillips and Christopher Lee Phillips Dorothy Pyle, Individually and as and Personal Representative of the Estate of Jerry Pyle Lynda Rockne, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Paul Rockne and as Guardian and Next Friend of Damien Rockne Gene Bray Lois Bray Ron Blackwell William Nimmo Tracy Sanchez Steven Vick and Judy Walker v. City of Edmond, a Municipal Corporation Clent Dedek, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Edmond John Doe, Individually William Savage, Individually and Dale Fowlkes, Individually
Childs v. Pinnacle Health Care, LLC
Coardes v. Chrysler Corp.
Robert J. Adams, Merredna T. Buckley, William J. Calloway, James Joseph Connell, Anthony Michael Cosella, John R. Cook, Anne Crowley, on Behalf of the Estate of William J. Crowley, Deceased, Kathryn M. Cullen, Angelina A. Dicarlo, Rocco Delgrammastro, Kathleen Diehl, as of the Estate of John M. Dillenschneider, Deceased, Wanda A. Domarotsky, Frank A. Dregar, Robert J. Egy, Amanda Fay, Martha Flinn, Thomas E. Flood, Cornelius Frazier, Jr., Mary Gerace, Rose T. Guokas, John Guy, Mary F. Habina, James Hickman, John Hudson, Robert H. Jones, Pearl Kelly, Joseph J. Klein, Elizabeth D. Linder, Augustine Marucci, James McGowan Elizabeth A. McNally John Morris, John Mumbower, Anna M. Myers, Agnes M. Myers, John A. Neff, Ruth O'donnell, Grace Mary Papala, Anna Petriccione, Richard M. Phillips, Russell Ralls, Florence Raysick, Daniel J. Ronau, Bernard C. Russell, John v. Russell, Margaret Russell, Anthony Santoleri, Walter J. Stanowitch, Madeline T. Stein, John F. Steinmetz, Beatrice L. Stillwell, Marie Smith, Nancy Swallow, Marion Thompson, William J. Watts, Antoinette W. Weiss, Clifford W. Williams, Robert Williams, James C. Wollner, Frank Umstetter, Marie Venti, James C. Willner, Bridget Barlow v. Gould Inc. And First Trust Company of St. Paul, Minnesota, Individually and as Trustee of the Gould Inc. Pension Trust for Hourly Employees and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO REVISE AND PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS THERETO In Docket No. 091621, the plaintiff, Patricia A. Moody, coexecutor of the estate of Dorothy Frances Parketon Mackin, and individually, filed an amended complaint against the defendants, Lord Chamberlain, Inc., Chamberlain Healthcare, Inc, and Ryder's Healthcare Management, Inc. (collectively, "Chamberlain"). In Docket No. 091622, the plaintiff, Janet E. Drew, as coexecutor of the same estate, and individually, also filed a complaint against Chamberlain. The operative complaints in each file make identical allegations. On February 16, 2001, Chamberlain filed identical requests to revise in each file. The plaintiff in each case filed identical objections thereto on March 19, 2001. The following decision is applicable to the requests to revise and the objections in each file. Hereinafter, references to the plaintiff in each file will be in the singular.

The plaintiff's objection to Chamberlain's first request seeking revision of ¶ 68 of the first count of the complaint is sustained. The plaintiff's objection to Chamberlain's fourth request to revise is also sustained. The plaintiff's objection to Chamberlain's third requested revision seeking, in part, deletion of ¶¶ 72, 73 and 74 of the first count is overruled.¹ It is so ordered.

By the court, Gilardi, J.