Pauly
Pauly v. Stanford Health Care
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MAKENZIE PAULY, Case No. 18-cv-05387-SI
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
v. RULE 12(F) MOTION TO STRIKE
STANFORD HEALTH CARE, Re: Dkt. No. 96 Defendant.
12 13 Before the Court is plaintiff Makenzie Pauly’s Motion to Strike the entirety of defendant Stanford Health Care’s Answer. Dkt. No. 96 (Motion); Dkt. No. 39 (Answer). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing set for January 14, 2022. For the reasons below, the motion will be DENIED. 19 BACKGROUND 1. The Lawsuit Pauly was ten years old when the events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in 2008. As she alleges, Standard Health Care (“SHC”) violated various provisions in the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (“EMTALA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd et seq., when it “refus[ed] to accept” her transfer from a hospital in…