Hammes Company Healthcare, LLC et al v. Tri-City Healthcare District et al

Filing 202

ORDER Directing Entry of Amended Judgment. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 1/10/2014.(srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

HAMMES COMPANY
HEALTHCARE, LLC, a Wisconsin
12 limited liability company, and HC TRICITY I, LLC, a Wisconsin limited
13 liability company,
11

14
15
16

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE
DISTRICT, a California public entity,
et al.

17

Defendants,

18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:09-cv-2324-GPC-KSC
ORDER DIRECTING ENTRY OF
AMENDED JUDGMENT

19
20
21
22

All claims against all parties in this case have been finally resolved, as set forth
in the following orders:
1.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 14);

23
24

January 28, 2010 Amended Order: Granting in Part and Denying in Part

2.

July 11, 2011 Order: Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 85);

25
26

3.

December 13, 2011 Order, (ECF No. 110);

27

4.

December 21, 2012 Order: Dismissing Claims for Declaratory Relief,

28

(ECF No. 147); and
3:09-cv-2324-GPC-KSC

5.

1

January 8, 2014 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Following
Bench Trial, (ECF No. 200).

2
3

Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to amend the final judgment

4

entered on January 8, 2014, to finally dispose of all claims and parties to this action as

5

follows:

6

1.

Final judgment shall be entered in favor of defendant Tri-City Healthcare

7

District (“District”) and against plaintiff Hammes Company Healthcare,

8

LLC (“Hammes”) on Hammes’ claim for breach of contract (Letter of

9

Intent);
2.

10

Final judgment shall be entered in favor of defendant District and against

11

plaintiffs Hammes and HC Tri-City I, LLC (“HC”) on Hammes’ and HC’s

12

claim for breach of contracts (Ground Lease and Space Lease);
3.

13

Final judgment shall be entered in favor of defendants District, Pamela

14

Smith (“Smith”), and Larry Anderson (“Anderson”), and against plaintiffs

15

Hammes and HC, on Hammes’ and HC’s claim for breach of the implied

16

covenant of good faith and fair dealing;
4.

17

Final judgment shall be entered in favor of defendants Smith and

18

Anderson, and against plaintiffs Hammes and HC, on Hammes’ and HC’s

19

claim for fraud;
5.

20

Final judgment shall be entered in favor of defendants District, Anderson,

21

and Smith, and against plaintiffs Hammes and HC, on Hammes’ and HC’s

22

claim for interference with contract and/or economic advantage;
6.

23

Final judgment shall be entered in favor of defendants District, Anderson,

24

and Smith, and against plaintiffs Hammes and HC, on Hammes’ and HC’s

25

claim for promissory estoppel; and

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

3:09-cv-2324-GPC-KSC

1

7.

Final judgment shall be entered in favor of defendants District, Anderson,

2

and Smith, and against plaintiffs Hammes and HC, on Hammes’ and HC’s

3

claim for declaratory relief.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 10, 2014

6
7

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

3:09-cv-2324-GPC-KSC