Lois Goodman v. Los Angeles Police Department et al

Filing 209

JUDGMENT by Judge John A. Kronstadt. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is hereby entered infavor of Defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES (erroneously sued and served herein as LOSANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT), DETECTIVE JEFFREY BRISCOE, DETECTIVENICK PIKOR, DETECTIVE DAVID PETEQUE, DETECTIVE PAMELA PITCHER,COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (erroneously sued and served herein as Los Angeles CountyDepartment of Coroner), YULAI WANG (individually and in his official capacity as anemployee of the Los angeles County Coroners Office) (collectively, Defendants) andagainst Plaintiff LOIS GOODMAN; that the action be dismissed with prejudice; and thatDefendants may seek to recover their costs in accordance with Local Rule 54. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (bp)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

LOIS GOODMAN, an individual,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
LOS ANGELES POLICE
)
DEPARTMENT, et al.
)
)
)
Defendants.
____________________________________ )

Case No. CV13-05959 JAK (MANx)
Hon. John A. Kronstadt - Ctrm. 750 Roybal
Hon. Mag. Margaret A. Nagle - Ctrm. 580 Roybal

JUDGMENT
JS-6

12
13
14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is hereby entered in

15 favor of Defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES (erroneously sued and served herein as LOS
16 ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT), DETECTIVE JEFFREY BRISCOE, DETECTIVE
17 NICK PIKOR, DETECTIVE DAVID PETEQUE, DETECTIVE PAMELA PITCHER,
18 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (erroneously sued and served herein as Los Angeles County
19 Department of Coroner), YULAI WANG (individually and in his official capacity as an
20 employee of the Los angeles County Coroner’s Office) (collectively, “Defendants”) and
21 against Plaintiff LOIS GOODMAN; that the action be dismissed with prejudice; and that
22 Defendants may seek to recover their costs in accordance with Local Rule 54.
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25 DATED: May 14, 2015
26

________________________________
JOHN A. KRONSTADT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
1