Cecil Shaw v. Jar-Ramona Plaza LLC et al

Filing 118

JUDGMENT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Upon Stipulation 117 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant, JAR-Ramona Plaza, LLC, as to all claims filed by Plaintiff Cecil Shaw. (2) Defendant JAR-Ramona Plaza, LLC is the prevailing party in this litigation and is entitled to its costs, including its costs on appeal. (3) This Judgment shall be amended to reflect the amount of any costs, including, if applicable, any attorneys' fees, subsequently ordered by this Court. (gk)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CECIL SHAW,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14
15
16

JAR-RAMONA PLAZA, LLC, a
California limited liability company,

17

Defendant.

18

) No. 5:13-cv-01563-CAS-SP
)
)
)
) JUDGMENT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

19
20

This Judgment is entered based on the following facts and circumstances:

21

A.

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Cecil Shaw filed his Complaint Asserting

22

Denial of Right of Access under Americans with Disabilities Act for Injunctive

23

Relief, Declaratory Relief, Damages, Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (ADA) [Docket No.

24

1].

25

B.

On April 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint

26

Asserting Denial of Right of Access under Americans with Disabilities Act for

27

Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Relief, Damages, Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (ADA)

28

[Docket No. 57];

1

C.

1

On March 16, 2015, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

2

Judgment or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication against Defendant, JAR-

3

Ramona Plaza, LLC, a California limited liability company (the “Summary

4

Judgment Motion”) [Docket No. 110];
D.

5

On March 24, 2015, the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to

6

voluntarily dismiss this action with prejudice so that Plaintiff could appeal this

7

Court’s March 16, 2015 Order denying his Summary Judgment Motion [Docket No.

8

112];
E.

9
10

On March 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [Docket No. 113];
F.

11

On January 18, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

12

Circuit filed its Memorandum affirming this Court’s Order denying Plaintiff’s

13

Summary Judgment Motion [Docket No. 115];
G.

14

On February 9, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit filed its

15

Mandate pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure [Docket

16

No. 116].
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON ALL OF THE ABOVE, IT IS HEREBY

17
18

ORDERED that:
1.

19
20

to all claims filed by Plaintiff Cecil Shaw.
2.

21
22

Defendant JAR-Ramona Plaza, LLC is the prevailing party in this

litigation and is entitled to its costs, including its costs on appeal.
3.

23
24

Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant, JAR-Ramona Plaza, LLC, as

This Judgment shall be amended to reflect the amount of any costs,

including, if applicable, any attorneys’ fees, subsequently ordered by this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.

25
26

27

Dated: February 15, 2017

28

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2