Beverly Hills Unified School District v. Federal Transit Administration et al
Filing
236
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)
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)
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)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?