Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Tello v. Kaiser Permanente, 2:18-cv-07380-AB (PJWx). (2020)

Court: District Court, C.D. California Number: infdco20200313a49 Visitors: 15
Filed: Mar. 11, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 11, 2020
Summary: [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ANDR BIROTTE JR. , District Judge . SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Dennis Lake, and Tammy Bresnahan's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") was heard on January 31, 2020 before the Honorable Andr Birotte Jr., United States District Court Judge. The Court took the matter under submission. On February 12, 2020, the Court issued a ruling granting Defendants' motion in full and
More

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Dennis Lake, and Tammy Bresnahan's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") was heard on January 31, 2020 before the Honorable André Birotte Jr., United States District Court Judge. The Court took the matter under submission. On February 12, 2020, the Court issued a ruling granting Defendants' motion in full and dismissing all of Plaintiff's claims, including claims against Kaiser Permanente. (Dkt. No. 64). The Court, having considered the Motion, Opposition, and Reply, together with all evidence and other papers submitted by the parties in connection with the Motion, and having considered the issues and oral argument presented by counsel for all parties, and having granted Defendants' Motion in its entirety:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Summary Judgment be entered in favor of Defendants Kaiser Permanente, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Dennis Lake, and Tammy Bresnahan against Plaintiff Sandra Tello. All causes of action asserted by Plaintiff Sandra Tello against Defendants Kaiser Permanente, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Dennis Lake, and Tammy Bresnahan are dismissed with prejudice.

Further as the prevailing parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) and Local Rule 54, Defendants are to be awarded costs. "Rule 54(d) creates a presumption for awarding costs to prevailing parties; the losing party must show why costs should not be awarded." Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944-45 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Dawson v. City of Seattle, 435 F.3d 1054, 1070 (9th Cir. 2006).

Consistent with Local Rule 54-3, Defendants shall file a Notice of Application to the Clerk to Tax Costs and shall attach a proposed Bill of Costs within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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