Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00807/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00807-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATIONAL RAILROAD )

PASSENGER CORPORATION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

ADMIRAL MERCHANTS MOTOR )

FREIGHT, INC., ROGER )

CREVISTON, COUNTY OF MERCED, ) 

and ATWATER ELECTRIC, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

)

)

AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS. )

)

____________________________________)

CV F 05-0807 AWI DLB

ORDER GRANTING ADMIRAL

MERCHANTS MOTOR FREIGHT,

INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF

NATIONAL RAILROAD

PASSENGER CORPORATION

(AMTRACK)

ORDER GRANTING COUNTY OF

MERCED’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO

PLAINTIFF NATIONAL RAILROAD

PASSENGER CORPORATION

(AMTRACK)

(Documents #61 & #66)

On November 11, 2006, Defendant Atwater Electric filed a motion for summary

judgment. Defendant Atwater Electric requests summary judgment as to Plaintiff National

Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrack”). Defendant Atwater’s motion also includes a

request for summary judgment as to the cross-claims of Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., 

Roger Creviston, and County of Merced. On November 16, 2006, Plaintiff Amtrack filed a

notice of non-opposition to Defendant Atwater Electric’s motion for summary judgment. On

November 20, 2006, Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. and Roger Creviston filed an

opposition to Defendant Atwater Electric’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, based

on Plaintiff Amtrack’s notice, Defendant Atwater Electric’s motion will be granted as to

Amtrack and the hearing date vacated.

Case 1:05-cv-00807-AWI-DLB Document 87 Filed 11/30/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

On November 11, 2006, Defendant County of Merced filed a motion for summary

judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication, as to Plaintiff Amtrack. On November 16,

2006, Plaintiff Amtrack filed a notice of non-opposition to Defendant County of Merced’s

motion. Accordingly, based on Plaintiff Amtrack’s notice, Defendant County of Merced’s

motion will be granted and the hearing date vacated.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. The previously set hearing date of December 4, 2006, is VACATED, and

no party shall appear at that time;

2. Atwater Electric’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff Amtrack

is GRANTED; and

3. County of Merced’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff Amtrack

is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00807-AWI-DLB Document 87 Filed 11/30/06 Page 2 of 2