White v. A & B Properties

Filing 16

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 10 Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss the Case. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 6/27/18. (dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court

10

Southern District of California

11
12
13

Dorothy White,

14

Plaintiff,

15
16
17

v.

Case No. 17cv1445 GPC (BLM)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
EX PARTE MOITON TO DISMISS
THE CASE

A & B Properties,
Defendant.

18
19
20
21

Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to dismiss the case requesting the federal

22

ADA claim be dismissed with prejudice and that the court decline supplemental

23

jurisdiction over the state law claims as her claims are now moot due to

24

Defendant’s remediation efforts. (Dkt. No. 10.) Defendant filed a response

25

agreeing with Plaintiff’s request but noting that it requests that dismissal be

26

made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41 and that no party

27

be deemed a prevailing party in this action subject to Rule 41(d). (Dkt. No. 11.)

28

In reply, Plaintiff does not object to a court ruling that neither party is deemed a
1

1
2
3
4

prevailing party under the ADA but opposes such a ruling over the state law
claims as those claims are alive and well. (Dkt. No. 12.) On June 14, 2018, the
parties filed supplemental briefing on this disputed issue pursuant to the Court’s
order directing supplemental briefing. (Dkt. Nos. 13, 14, 15.)

5

Upon consideration of the parties’ briefing, the Court GRANTS

6

Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion to dismiss and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the

7
8
9
10
11

federal ADA claim is dismissed with prejudice, and the Court declines
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismisses the
state law claims without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 27, 2018

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2