Edward Bussey v. Edison International, Inc. et al

Filing 38

JUDGMENT by Judge A. Howard Matz, in favor of Southern California Edison, Inc. against Edward Bussey Related to: Summary Judgment 33 . (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (se)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

JOHN F. GUEST, State Bar No. 123573 JOHN D. BUCHANAN, State Bar No. 119584 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Suite 360B Rosemead, CA 91770 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EDWARD BUSSEY, Plaintiff, v. EDISON INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. CV 08-00158 AHM (RCx) JUDGMENT

This action is before the Court pursuant to jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). At the scheduling conference of May 19, 2008, the court granted Plaintiff's oral motion to dismiss Defendant Edison International, Inc. without prejudice. The Court further ordered that Plaintiff complete service on individual Defendants Brad Girard and Ray Waldo within 21 days of the May 19 scheduling conference or such individual Defendants would be dismissed. Such service was not completed within that time and, pursuant to the court's order, individual Defendants Brad Girard and Ray Waldo were dismissed without prejudice.

1608111

-3­

___________________________________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT [PROPOSED]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1608111

On February 23, 2009, this action came on for hearing before the court, Honorable A. Howard Matz, District Judge presiding, on motion for summary judgment by Defendant Southern California Edison Company. The evidence presented having been fully considered, the issues having been duly heard and a decision having been duly rendered based on reasons set forth on the record and in the court's minute order of February 23, 2009, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED That the Plaintiff, Edward Bussey, take nothing, that the action be dismissed on the merits and that Defendant Southern California Edison Company recover its costs. DATED: March 9, 2009

_______________________________ A. HOWARD MATZ United States District Judge

-4­

___________________________________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT [PROPOSED]