Anderson

Anderson v. Dooley

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 15, 20204:15-cv-05120California6,781 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRUCE ANDERSON, et al., Case No. 15-cv-05120-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND

9 v. MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING

10 MARK GHALY, in his official capacity as MOTION TO QUASH Secretary of the CALIFORNIA 11 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Dkt. Nos. 51, 56, 57

HUMAN SERVICES,

12 Defendant. 13

14 Pending before the Court are a motion for partial summary judgment (“SJ Motion,” Dkt. 15 No. 56) and a motion for preliminary injunction (“PI Motion,” Dkt. No. 57) filed by Plaintiffs 16 Bruce Anderson, Robert Austin, John Wilson, and California Advocates for Nursing Home 17 Reform (“CANHR”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), for which briefing is complete. Dkt. No. 60 (“SJ 18 Opp.”); Dkt. No. 62 (“PI Opp.”); Dkt. No. 65 (“SJ Reply”); Dkt. No. 67 (“PI Reply”). Defendant 19 Mark Ghaly (“Defendant”), in his official capacity as Secretary of the California Health and 20 Human Services Agency, has also filed a motion to quash (Dkt. No. 51, “Mot. 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.