UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
September 21, 2012
MICHAEL N. JONES, AN INDIVIDUAL; JILL JONES, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND G.J., AN INDIVIDUAL, PLAINTIFFS,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES; THE OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY; CITY OF SANTA MONICA; CITY OF SANTA MONICA POLICE DEPARTMENT; CLAUDIA WANG, AN INDIVIDUAL; SHAWN RIVAS, AN INDIVIDUAL; DEBORAH RAMIREZ, AN INDIVIDUAL; YOLANDA JOHNSON, AN INDIVIDUAL; ASAYE TSEGGA, AN INDIVIDUAL; SUSAN LAND, AN INDIVIDUAL; AMIR PICHVAI, AN INDIVIDUAL; PETER ZAMFIROV, AN INDIVIDUAL; RUSSELL GRIMMOND, AN INDIVIDUAL; LESLIE TRAPNELL, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND LLOYD GLADDEN, AN INDIVIDUAL, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable S. James Otero
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AMIR PICHVAI PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 54(b)
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: After considering the moving, opposing, and reply papers, and all other matters presented to and accepted by the Court, the Honorable S. James Otero granted the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant AMIR PICHVAI ("PICHVAI") on July 18, 2012 (Dkt. No. 172).
The Court finds, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), that no reason exists to delay in entering final judgment in favor of PICHVAI on the grounds that all causes of action asserted against him have been dismissed, the only remaining defendant in this action has filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of her motion for summary judgment, and the factual bases asserted by Plaintiffs against the various Defendants are, in certain respects, distinct. In addition, Plaintiffs indicate they intend to appeal the Court's ruling as to PICHVAI and entering judgment now may allow the appeals to be heard in a coordinated fashion.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiffs MICHAEL N. JONES, JILL JONES and G.J., by and through his guardian ad litem Mark Meyers, take nothing by this action from PICHVAI, that Plaintiffs' claims against PICHVAI be dismissed on their merits and with prejudice, and that PICHVAI recover his costs of suit pursuant to a bill of costs filed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Honorable S. James Otero United States District Court Judge
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.