Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, et al v. Unity Outpatient Surgery Center

United States District Court Central District of California


December 17, 2010

BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ALABAMA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
UNITY OUTPATIENT SURGERY CENTER, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Terry J. Hatter, Jr. Senior United States District Judge

#:42496

Order and Judgment

The Court has considered Plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment against Defendants Catherine Bach and Andrew Andalibian, together with the moving and opposing papers.

To prevail on summary judgment, Plaintiffs, as the parties with the burden of proof at trial, have the initial burden to establish the essential elements of each of their claims. Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 2003). Usually, all inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to Bach and Andalibian. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S. Ct. 993, 994, 8 L. Ed. 2d 176, 177 (1962). If Plaintiffs meet their burden, then the burden shifts to Bach and Andalibian to show that a triable issue regarding a material fact exists. Gasaway v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 957, 960 (9th Cir. 1994). Bach and Andalibian may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of her or his pleading. Gasaway,26 F.3d at 960.

Plaintiffs' evidence must be admissible at trial. Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002). However, the evidence need not be presented in a form that would be admissible at trial. Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003). Rather, the contents of the evidence must be admissible. Fraser, 342 F.3d at 1036.

Plaintiffs have established every essential element of their RICO and common law fraud claims as to Bach. As Bach has not satisfied her burden of showing why summary judgment should not be granted, summary judgment against her is appropriate.

Looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to Andalibian, Plaintiffs have not established any essential element of their claims against him.

It is Ordered that Plaintiffs' partial summary judgment motion against Bach as to the claims for RICO violations and common law fraud be, and hereby is Granted.

It is further Ordered that, as to Bach, Plaintiffs' damages under their RICO claim are $952,718.42, and their damages under their common law fraud claim are $952,718.42.

It is further Ordered that the partial summary judgment motion against Andalibian be, and hereby is Denied.

It is further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that Judgment be, and hereby is, Entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Catherine Bach in the amount of $2,858,155.26, based on the trebling of $952,718.42.

It is Further Ordered that within sixty days of this Order and Judgment Plaintiffs shall file a motion to dismiss their remaining claims against Bach.

20101217

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.