Pieszak

Pieszak v. Glendale Adventist Medical Center

Good Law
112 F. Supp. 2d 970·2000 WL 1251913·2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12652
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaAugust 1, 2000CV 97-4705 ABC (CWX)California15,796 words

Opinion

Opinion

Collins, J.

ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT LOPEZ’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT RIFFEL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT GLENDALE ADVENTIST’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ,

Defendants filed three separate motions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 on January 31, 2000. Defendants’ motions came on regularly for hearing before this Court on July 17, 2000. After considering the materials submitted by the parties, argument of counsel, and the case file, the Court GRANTS AND DENIES the motions as indicated herein.

I. Procedural Background

On June 26, 1997, Plaintiff Caroline Pieszak, M.D., filed a Complaint against Defendants Glendale Adventist Medical Center (“GAMC”), Hugo Riffel, M.D., and Robert Lopez, M.D. The Complaint alleged various claims stemming from Pies-zak’s participation in GAMC’s Obstetrics/Gynecology residency program. A First Amended Complaint was filed on March 24, 1998. On October 15, 1998, the Court granted Pieszak leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) and a Suppleméntal Complaint (“SupC”). Pies-zak filed the SAC on December 17, 1998.

The SAC alleges twelve claims for…

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.