From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. Millenium Acquisitions, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 8, 2016
No. 1:14-cv-01402-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2016)

Opinion

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

03-08-2016

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


ORDER ENTERING JUDGMENT, DISMISSING CLAIMS, AND VACATING FUTURE DATES

(Doc. No. 62.)

On March 4, 2016, the court issued its order on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 61). In that order the court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on claims under the Unruh Act based on sixteen violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and awarded plaintiff statutory damages of $ 4,000. (Doc. No. 61.) On March 7, 2016, the parties filed a joint stipulation requesting that the court: (1) enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants consistent with the court's order on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and (2) dismiss plaintiff's remaining four claims for injunctive relief as to the gas station's self-service items in the north and south convenience stores; the public pay phone parts, and the coat hooks in the north convenience store. (Doc. No. 62.) /////

Accordingly, the court hereby enters judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against defendants as set forth in the court's order on plaintiff's summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 61 at 24, ¶¶ 2-3.). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58; Harmston v. City and County of San Francisco, 627 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Hollywood v. City of Santa Maria, 886 F.2d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 1989) (explaining that, in accordance with the language of Rule 58, "we have held with respect to a final judgment, that the separate entry rule requires entry of a document distinct from any opinion or memorandum").

In light of the parties' stipulation as to plaintiff's remaining four claims, those claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). The court also VACATES all future dates previously scheduled in this action, including the March 14, 2016 pretrial conference and the April 26, 2016 trial dates. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 8 , 2016

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Moore v. Millenium Acquisitions, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 8, 2016
No. 1:14-cv-01402-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2016)
Case details for

Moore v. Millenium Acquisitions, LLC

Case Details

Full title:RONALD MOORE, Plaintiff, v. MILLENIUM ACQUISITIONS, LLC, and TIMELESS…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 8, 2016

Citations

No. 1:14-cv-01402-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2016)