Moore v. Millennium Acquisitions, LLC et al

Filing 63

ORDER Entering Judgment, Dismissing Claims, and Vacating Future Dates signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/8/2016. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONALD MOORE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 1:14-cv-01402-DAD-SAB

v.
MILLENIUM ACQUISITIONS, LLC, and
TIMELESS INVESTMENTS, INC. dba
ARCO AM/PM #84176,

16

ORDER ENTERING JUDGMENT,
DISMISSING CLAIMS, AND VACATING
FUTURE DATES
(Doc. No. 62.)

Defendants.

17
18
19

On March 4, 2016, the court issued its order on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

20

(Doc. No. 61). In that order the court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on claims

21

under the Unruh Act based on sixteen violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and

22

awarded plaintiff statutory damages of $ 4,000. (Doc. No. 61.) On March 7, 2016, the parties

23

filed a joint stipulation requesting that the court: (1) enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and

24

against defendants consistent with the court’s order on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment,

25

and (2) dismiss plaintiff’s remaining four claims for injunctive relief as to the gas station’s self-

26

service items in the north and south convenience stores; the public pay phone parts, and the coat

27

hooks in the north convenience store. (Doc. No. 62.)

28

/////
1

1

Accordingly, the court hereby enters judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against

2

defendants as set forth in the court’s order on plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 61

3

at 24, ¶¶ 2–3.). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58; Harmston v. City and County of San Francisco, 627 F.3d

4

1273 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Hollywood v. City of Santa Maria, 886 F.2d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir.

5

1989) (explaining that, in accordance with the language of Rule 58, “we have held with respect to

6

a final judgment, that the separate entry rule requires entry of a document distinct from any

7

opinion or memorandum”).

8

In light of the parties’ stipulation as to plaintiff’s remaining four claims, those claims are

9

hereby DISMISSED with prejudice, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111

10

F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). The court also VACATES all future dates previously scheduled in

11

this action, including the March 14, 2016 pretrial conference and the April 26, 2016 trial dates.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated:

March 8, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2