Sandra Tello v. Kaiser Permanente

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 11, 2020
• Docket: 2:18-cv-07380
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 JS-6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 SANDRA TELLO, Case No.: 2:18-cv-07380-AB (PJWx) District Judge André Birotte Jr. 11 Plaintiff, Courtroom 7B

12 vs.

13 KAISER PERMANENTE, [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 14 PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ DENNIS LAKE, TAMMY MOTION FOR SUMMARY 15 BRESNAHAN, and DOES 1 through JUDGMENT 10, Inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Defendants Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Dennis Lake, 3 and Tammy Bresnahan’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) was heard 4 on January 31, 2020 before the Honorable André Birotte Jr., United States 5 District Court Judge. The Court took the matter under submission. On February 6 12, 2020, the Court issued a ruling granting Defendants’ motion in full and 7 dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims, including claims against Kaiser Permanente. 8 (Dkt. No. 64). The Court, having considered the Motion, Opposition, and Reply, 9 together with all evidence and other papers submitted by the parties in connection 10 with the Motion, and having considered the issues and oral argument presented by 11 counsel for all parties, and having granted Defendants’ Motion in its entirety: 12 13 14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 15 Summary Judgment be entered in favor of Defendants Kaiser Permanente, 16 Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Dennis Lake, and Tammy 17 Bresnahan against Plaintiff Sandra Tello. All causes of action asserted by 18 Plaintiff Sandra Tello against Defendants Kaiser Permanente, Southern California 19 Permanente Medical Group, Dennis Lake, and Tammy Bresnahan are dismissed 20 with prejudice. 21 Further as the prevailing parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure 54(d) and Local Rule 54, Defendants are to be awarded costs. “Rule 23 54(d) creates a presumption for awarding costs to prevailing parties; the losing 24 party must show why costs should not be awarded.” Save Our Valley v. Sound 25 Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944-45 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Dawson v. City of Seattle, 26 435 F.3d 1054, 1070 (9th Cir. 2006). 27 28 1 Consistent with Local Rule 54-3, Defendants shall file a Notice of 2 || Application to the Clerk to Tax Costs and shall attach a proposed Bill of Costs 3 || within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Judgment. 5 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 (nh 9 || Dated: March 11, 2020 . 10 ANDRE BIROTTE JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SC fPROPOSED} JUDGMENT GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT