Beverly Hills Unified School District v. Federal Transit Administration et al, No. 2:2018cv00716 - Document 236 (C.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge George H. Wu. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 1. On May 15, 2020, the Court issued a third tentative ruling regarding the parties cross-motions for summary judgment. That ruling incorporates by reference the Courts previous tentative rulings (Docket Nos. 125 and 149), grants summary judgment in favor of all Defendants, and denies Plaintiffs Motion for summary judgment. (SEE JUDGMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (yl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Beverly Hills Unified School District v. Federal Transit Administration et al Doc. 236 JS-6 1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ) No. CV 18-716-GW-SSx ) ) Honorable George H. Wu Plaintiff, ) ) FINAL JUDGMENT v. ) ) FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION; K. JANE ) WILLIAMS, in her official capacity as the ) Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration; ) RAYMOND TELLIS, in his official capacity as ) Regional Administrator of the Federal Transit ) Administration’s Region IX Office; LOS ANGELES ) COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION ) AUTHORITY, a public entity; PHILLIP A. ) WASHINGTON, in his official capacity as Chief ) Executive Officer of the Los Angeles County ) Metropolitan Transportation Authority, ) ) Defendants. ) BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT Case No. 2:18-cv-00716 GW(SSx) Dockets.Justia.com In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and the Court’s Order of 1 2 May 18, 2020 (Docket No. 231), adopting as final the Court’s tentative rulings of June 3 27, 2019 (Docket No. 125), August 20, 2019 (Docket No. 149), and May 15, 2020, IT IS 4 HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 1. 5 On May 15, 2020, the Court issued a third tentative ruling regarding the 6 parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. That ruling incorporates by reference the 7 Court’s previous tentative rulings (Docket Nos. 125 and 149), grants summary judgment 8 in favor of all Defendants, and denies Plaintiff’s Motion for summary judgment. 2. 9 On May 18, 2020, the Court adopted its May 15, 2020 tentative ruling as 10 final (Docket 231). 3. 11 As to all of Plaintiff’s claims, judgment is entered in favor of Defendants. 12 Such claims are dismissed with prejudice. 4. 13 Plaintiff’s request pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) and in accordance with 14 Fed. R. App. P. 8(a) for a stay of this Final Judgment and for an injunction pending 15 appeal enjoining Defendants from proceeding with construction of the “Project 16 Alignment” of the Purple Line Extension between a station on Wilshire Boulevard in 17 Beverly Hills to Century City in Los Angeles (the “Project”) and with construction at the 18 Projects Staging Areas 2 and 3, made orally during the May 18, 2020 hearing, is denied. 5. 19 In accordance with the Court’s Order of May 18, 2020 (Docket No. 230) 20 Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against the Los Angeles Transportation Authority 21 (Docket No. 213) is denied. 6. 22 All parties are to bear their own costs and attorney’s fees. 23 24 / / 25 / / 26 / / 27 28 1 [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT Case No. 2:18-cv-00716 GW(SSx) 1 7. Nothing herein modifies the Court’s rulings of June 27, 2019, August 20, 2 2019, and May 15, 2020 adopted as final on May 18, 2020. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 DATED: May 26, 2020 7 8 ______________________________________ 9 GEORGE H. WU, United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT Case No. 2:18-cv-00716 GW(SSx)
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
