Sandi Rush v. W.K.S. Restaurant Corporation et al

Filing 44

ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Ex Parte Application to Dismiss Case filed by Defendants/Cross Claimants Rubio Holdings, LLC and Crystal Enterprises, LLC 36 is GRANTED. All cross-claims are dismissed without prejudice. (Please see order for details). (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) (kpa)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SANDI RUSH,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,
v.
W.K.S. RESTAURANT
CORPORAITON dba EL POLLO
LOCO NO. 17; BIG 5 CORP. dba
BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS #400;
et al.
Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 10-04635 DDP (MANx)
ORDER DISMISSING CASE

[Docket NO. 36]

Presently before the court is the Ex Parte Application to

19

Dismiss Case filed by Defendants/Cross Claimants Rubio Holdings,

20

LLC and Crystal Enterprises, LLC (collectively, “Applicants”).

21

(Dkt. No. 36.)

22

no opposition to the application has been filed.

23

The court notes that as of the date of this order,

This action was initially filed as an Americans with

24

Disabilities Act complaint against several defendants, including

25

Applicants and Cross Claimant Big 5 Corporation (“Big 5").

26

Applicants and Big 5 subsequently filed cross claims against each

27

other.

28

the cross claims remain.

All of Plaintiff’s claims have been resolved.

Thus, only

1

All of the cross claims concern interpretation of a lease

2

under state law.

3

controversy is less than $13,000.

4

to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law

5

claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826

6

(9th Cir. 2001) ("A court may decline to exercise supplemental

7

jurisdiction over related state-law claims once it has dismissed

8

all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.").

9

Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

10

No federal questions remain.

The amount in

Accordingly, the court declines

Applicants’

All cross-claims are dismissed

without prejudice.1

11
12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: October 4, 2011
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

The court notes that equitable tolling may apply to any
potential statute of limitations issues.
2