Evans v. Gilmore et al

Filing 82

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying as moot 81 Motion to Dismiss. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TERALYN RENEA EVANS, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 81 10 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al., Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 15-cv-01772-MEJ 12 On February 23, 2017, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants the 13 14 City of Richmond (the “City”) and Contra Costa County (the “County”) (together, “Defendants”). 15 Dkt. No. 72. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 58, the Court entered a 16 separate judgment in favor Defendants the same day. Dkt. No. 73. On March 10, 2017, the Court 17 dismissed several individual defendants who pro se Plaintiff Teralyn Evans (“Plaintiff”) named in 18 her Complaint but did not serve. Dkt. No. 78; see Dkt. No. 77 (declaration from Plaintiff 19 acknowledging failure to serve). There are no claims pending against any party. Nonetheless, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 81. She asks the Court to 20 21 “dismiss the claims brought against the Defendants, with prejudice, in their entirety” and explains 22 she “no longer ha[s] the time nor resources to dedicate to pursuing this lawsuit.” Id. The Court 23 entered judgment against Defendants and dismissed the unserved individual defendants. There are 24 no claims to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion AS MOOT.1 25 26 27 28 1 The City and the County filed Bills of Cost on March 2 and 6, 2017, respectively. Dkt. Nos. 74, 76; see Civ. L.R. 54-1. The Local Civil Rules allow the party against whom costs are claimed to object within fourteen days of service of the bill(s) of cost. Civ. L.R. 54-2(a). Plaintiff did not file any objections and thus waived her right to object. See Velasquez v. Donahue, 2014 WL 1018068, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2014). On April 3, 2017, the Clerk of Court taxed a total of $8,773.43 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 4 5 Dated: April 5, 2017 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 against Plaintiff. Dkt. Nos. 79-80. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to avoid the costs taxed against her, she cannot do so by moving to dismiss any claims or parties at this time. Plaintiff remains responsible for the costs taxed against her. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?