Deborah M Manchester v. Sivantos GMBH et al

Filing 661

JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendants on all Manchesters pleaded claims.Manchester shall take nothing by way of her Second Amended Complaint.by Judge Otis D. Wright, II, in favor of Auralcare Hearing Centers of America, Sivantos GMBH, Sivantos, Inc., David D Larsen against Deborah M Manchester, Ph.D. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)

JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

DEBORAH M. MANCHESTER, PH.D.,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Case №: 2:17-CV-05309-ODW (JEMx)

Plaintiff,
v.
SIVANTOS GMBH, a German company;
SIVANTOS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, AURALCARE HEARING
CENTERS OF AMERICA; DAVID D.
LARSEN, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

JUDGMENT

Defendants.

18
19

The Court, having considered the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 446.)

20

filed by Defendants Sivantos GmbH and Sivantos, Inc. (“Sivantos”); the Motion for

21

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 438.) filed by Defendants Auralcare Hearing Centers of

22

America, LLC d/b/a My Hearing Centers (“Auralcare”) and David D. Larsen

23

(“Larsen”); all papers filed in connection with those motions, including all supporting

24

papers and the opposition papers of Plaintiff Deborah M. Manchester, Ph.D.

25

(“Manchester”); and the record in the case; and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s

26

Order Granting Defendants’ Motions For Summary Judgment (ECF No. 647.), the

27

Court dismissed each and every claim set forth in Manchester’s Second Amended

28

Complaint (ECF No. 66.).

1

The Court having also considered the Motion to Strike Counterclaimant

2

Auralcare Hearing Centers of America’s (“Auralcare”) Countercomplaint (ECF No.

3

118.) filed by Manchester, including all supporting papers and opposition filed in

4

connection with the Motion to Strike Counterclaimant; and for the reasons set forth in

5

the Court’s Order Granting Manchester’s Motion to Strike Counterclaimant (ECF No.

6

652.); the Court struck and dismissed each and every claim set forth in Auralcare’s

7

Countercomplaint (ECF Nos. 89, 107.). Accordingly, the Court granted Manchester

8

until October 11, 2019 to file her Attorneys’ Fees Motion. (ECF No. 659.)

9

Now, therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that

10

JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendants on all Manchester’s pleaded claims.

11

Manchester shall take nothing by way of her Second Amended Complaint.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18
19

September 13, 2019

_________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2