Rafael D. Miranda v. Kent Thiry et al

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Central District Rafael D. Miranda v. Kent Thiry et al

Rafael D. Miranda v. Kent Thiry et al

Case Number:	2:2020cv05527
Filed:	December 2, 2021
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Office:	Western Division - Los Angeles Office
Nature of Suit:	Other Statutes: False Claims Act
Cause of Action:	31 U.S.C. § 3730 Qui Tam False Claims Act

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
December 3, 2021	Filing 70 JUDGMENT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Pursuant to the Courts Order Granting DaVita's Motion to Dismiss and Dismissing Remaining Defendants 69 , it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows : 1. Plaintiff Rafael D. Miranda shall take nothing from Defendants DaVita, Inc.; Kent Thiry; and HealthCare Partners, Inc. 2. Plaintiffs first claim for violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act as asserted against DaVita is DISMISSED ON THE MERITS AND WITH PREJUDICE. 3. The remainder of the action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.This Order shall constitute the FINAL JUDGMENT of the Court. All dates and deadlines in this matter are hereby VACATED. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)
December 2, 2021	Filing 69 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DAVITA'S MOTION TO DISMISS 56 AND DISMISSING REMAINING DEFENDANTS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS DaVitas Motion to Dismiss by DISMISSING Claim One against DaVita WITH P REJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. (ECF No. 56.) The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims against DaVita and accordingly DISMISSES those claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE.The Court DISMISSES all claims against Thiry and HealthCare Partners WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to effect timely service. The Court will issue Judgment. (lc)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 3, 2021

Filing 70 JUDGMENT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Pursuant to the Courts Order Granting DaVita's Motion to Dismiss and Dismissing Remaining Defendants 69 , it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows : 1. Plaintiff Rafael D. Miranda shall take nothing from Defendants DaVita, Inc.; Kent Thiry; and HealthCare Partners, Inc. 2. Plaintiffs first claim for violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act as asserted against DaVita is DISMISSED ON THE MERITS AND WITH PREJUDICE. 3. The remainder of the action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.This Order shall constitute the FINAL JUDGMENT of the Court. All dates and deadlines in this matter are hereby VACATED. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)

December 2, 2021

Filing 69 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DAVITA'S MOTION TO DISMISS 56 AND DISMISSING REMAINING DEFENDANTS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS DaVitas Motion to Dismiss by DISMISSING Claim One against DaVita WITH P REJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. (ECF No. 56.) The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims against DaVita and accordingly DISMISSES those claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE.The Court DISMISSES all claims against Thiry and HealthCare Partners WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to effect timely service. The Court will issue Judgment. (lc)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rafael D. Miranda v. Kent Thiry et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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?