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)
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?