Bourgeois

Bourgeois v. Pentec Health, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 4, 20254:23-cv-06375California4,678 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 PENNY BOURGEOIS, Case No. 23-cv-06375-HSG

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

DENYING MOTION TO REMAND

PENTEC HEALTH, INC., Re: Dkt. Nos. 43, 58 Defendant.

12 Pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Pentec Health, Inc., Dkt. No. 43, and a motion to remand filed by Plaintiff Penny Bourgeois, Dkt. No. 58. The Court finds these matters appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matters are deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion for summary judgment and DENIES the motion to remand. I. BACKGROUND The parties are familiar with the facts of this case, and the Court includes them here only as relevant to the pending motion. The following facts are based on the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.