Van Horn vs. Hornbeak, et al., No. 1:2008cv01622 - Document 77 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING Receiver Defendants' Motion for Judgement and DIRECTING the Clerk to Enter Final Judgment in Favor of the Receiver Defendants, Signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/28/2009. (Arellano, S.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Van Horn vs. Hornbeak, et al. Doc. 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONDI VAN HORN, 12 13 CASE NO. CV F 08-1622 LJO DLB Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING RECEIVER DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AND DIRECTING THE CLERK TO ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE RECEIVER DEFENDANTS vs. 14 TINA HORNBEAK, et al, 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 The First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Dondi Van Horn (“Plaintiff”) asserted a single cause 18 of action against defendants J. Clark Kelso and Robert Sillen, individually and in their official capacity 19 as Receiver of the California prison medical care system (the “Receiver Defendants”). The First 20 Amended Complaint asserts multiple additional causes of action against multiple other defendants. 21 The Receiver Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for lack of 22 subject matter jurisdiction. On January 28, 2009, this Court granted that motion and entered an order 23 dismissing the First Amended Complaint as to the Receiver Defendants (the “January 28 Order”). 24 On April 7, 2009, the Receiver Defendants filed a motion, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal 25 Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order certifying the January 28 Order as a final judgment and ordering 26 the immediate entry of judgment in favor of the Receiver Defendants and against Plaintiff. On April 24, 27 2009, Plaintiff filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to the Receiver Defendants’ Rule 54(b) motion. No 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 other party to the action has opposed the motion. 2 The Court has reviewed the Receiver Defendants’ Rule 54(b) motion and finds that (1) this case 3 involves multiple claims against multiple defendants; (2) the first cause of action against the Receiver 4 Defendants alone was factually and legally distinct from the claims against the other named defendants; 5 (3) the January 28 Order constituted a final decision on the only cause of action in Plaintiff’s First 6 Amended Complaint alleged against the Receiver Defendants; and (4) there is no just cause to delay 7 certification of the January 28 Order as a final judgment. 8 Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Receiver Defendants’ Rule 54(b) motion is GRANTED. 9 The clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter final judgment in favor of defendants J. Clark Kelso and 10 Robert Sillen, individually and in their official capacity as Receiver of the California prison medical care 11 system, and against Plaintiff Dondi Van Horn. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: b9ed48 April 28, 2009 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
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.
