UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

__________________________________________ ) AN DREADA VI S, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Ci vi l A cti onNo. 08 -17 64 (P L F) ) GR AN T PA RK

NU RSI NGHO ME L P, d

/b/ a ) GRANT PARK CARE CENTER, e t al

. , ) ) De fe nd ants . ) __________________________________________)
ORDER For the re asons stated in the Opinion issued this same day , it is hereby ORDE RED that Co unt I I Iof Ms. Da vis ’ a me nd e d c omp la int

is D I SMI SSED a s to
a ll o f t he de fe nd ants ; it

is FURTHE R ORDERED that Grant Par k’s and DCMI ’s Motion to Dismi ss Count I Iof the Ame nded Complaint [ 14] i s GRANTED. Count I Iis DI SMI SSED as to all of the de fe nd ants ; it

is FURTHE R ORDERED that the motions to di smiss t he ame nded complaint by Ce nte nn ia l Co rp or atio n [19 ], Co a sta l [16 ], and Sho re lin e L L C [18 ] ar e GR AN TE D. Count I

is DI SMI SSED wi tho ut p re

jud ic e a s to Ce nte nn ia l Co rp or atio n, Coa sta l and Sho re lin e L L C; it

is FURTHE R ORDERED that Centennial L L C’s Motion to Dis miss the Amended C o mp l a i n tf

o r La c k o f P e r s o n a l J ur i s d i c t i o n[ 2 0 ] i s D E N IE D w i th o u tp r e j u d i c e . C e n t e n n i a l LLC
may re ne w this mot ion

a ft e r M s. Da

vis ob ta ins jur isd ic tio na l di sc ov e ry ; it is2 FURTHE R ORDERED that Centennial L L C’s Motion to S trike Exhibi ts from Pla int if f’ s O pp os iti on

to C e nte nn ia l L L C’ s Mo tio n to Di smi ss [3 7] is DENI ED a s mo ot; it i s F UR TH ER O RD ERE D that Pla int if f’ s Se c on d Ru le 56 (f

) M oti on [28] i s GRANTED. Ms. Da

vis shall be permitted to obtain limit ed discove ry with respec t to DCMI ’s
c ontr ol o r a

uth or ity ov e r G ra nt P ark Care Ce nte r; it i s F UR TH ER O RD ERE D that D CMI ’s Mo tio n f or Summary

Judg me nt [2 1] is DENI ED without prejudice . DCMImay rene w this moti on afte r Ms. Davis obtains limited dis c ov e ry purs ua nt t o Ru le 56 (f

) o f t he F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure ; it is FURTHE R ORDERED that the motions to s trike the propose d order and decla ration attac hed to plaintiff’s Sec ond Rule 56(f) Motion filed by Centennial Corporation [35], Coa sta l [36 ], and

Sho re lin e L L C [34 ] ar e DENI ED ; it is FURTHE R ORDERED that Shoreline Corporation’s Motion t o Dismiss t he Amended Complaint [17] is GRANTED as a g ainst it. S horeline Corpor ation is DI SMI SSED fr om t his c a se ; it

is FURTHE R ORDERED that Plainti ff’ s Motion to C ompel Production of the Chart of Jose phMa dig an f

ro m G ra nt P ark [43] i s D EN I ED ; and

it i s F UR TH ER O RD ERE D that on or be fo re Au gus t 31 , 2 00 9, the pa rt ie s sh a ll m e e t, confe r and f

ile a joint report. In that joint report, the par ties shall propose a sc hedule ( 1) for the l i m i t e d d i s c o v e r y a u th o r i z e d b y th i s O p i n i o n , an d

( 2 ) an y s u p p l e m e n t a l b r i e f

i n gt o f o l l o w . In
a dd iti on , th e pa

rt ie s’ joi nt r e po rt

sh a ll i nf or m th e Court

wh e the r t he pa rt ie s w ou ld p re fe r t o eng ag e in settlement discussions at this tim e (that is, before undertaking a ny discovery

and supplemental brief

ing) . I f so, the par

ties shall also inform the Court whethe r they would pref

er3

settlement assistance from a ma g istrate judg e or f rom the Court’s Alterna

tive Dispute Resolution p r o g r am , o r

i f th e y w o u l d

p r e f e r t o p ur s u e s e t t l e m e n td i s c u s s i o n s p r i v at e l y. SO ORDERED. /s/________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge DATE: August 5, 2009