In standard Utilitarianism, there are three basic propositions:

Actions are judged right and wrong solely on the basis of their consequences; that is, nothing else matters except the outcome, and right actions are simply those with the best outcomes.
The only criterion for assessing consequences is the amount of happiness and unhappiness caused; that is, there is only one criterion and everything else is irrelevant.
Nobody’s happiness is more important than anyone else’s in calculating happiness and unhappiness caused; that is, everyone’s welfare is equally important, and the majority rules.
In specific cases where justice and utility are at odds, it may appear more expedient to serve the greater happiness by acting quickly overruling consideration for justice. There is a downside to happiness that can lead to hurried decisions and actions that put decision-makers under time constraints.

Here’s a conundrum:

You have been elected as the district attorney. You get a phone call from a nursing home administrator who was a college friend of yours. She has a waiting list of 3,000 people who will die if they do not get into her nursing home facility within the next three weeks, and she currently has 400 patients who have asked (or their families have asked on their behalf) for assistance in helping them die from the famous Dr. Jack Kevorkian’s (fictitious) sister, Dr. Jill Kevorkian. The 3,000 people on the waiting list are desperate to live. She (the nursing home administrator) wants to know if you would agree to “look the other way” if she allowed Dr. Jill to assist in the suicide of the 400 patients who have requested it, allowing at least 400 of the 3,000 on the waiting list to enter.

How would we apply Utilitarianism to “resolve” this quandary?
What principles did your friend, the nursing home administrator, consider when deciding to contact you?
What ethics are you employing if you simply “look the other way” and allow it to happen?