Opinion
CASE NO. 2:18-cv-06271-AB-SS
11-15-2019
Nehemiah Kong, Plaintiff, v. Gradiazio Investment Company; Barchester Temple City, L.P., a California Limited Partnership; Bar-CA Independent I, Inc., a California Corporation; Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C., a California Limited Liability Company; and Does 1-10, Defendants.
JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On October 18, 2019, Defendants Barchester Temple City, L.P., Bar-CA Independent I, Inc., and Garfield Beach CVS, LLC's ("Defendants") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 47) and Plaintiff Nehemiah Kong's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 54) were heard before the Honorable Andre Birotte Jr. in Courtroom 7B of the above-entitled Court.
Ray Ballister, Esq. of Center for Disability Access appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.
Melissa Daugherty, Esq. and Kelley Fox, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendants. / / /
After full consideration of the moving papers, opposing papers, reply papers, and oral argument of counsel, the Court granted Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, finding that Plaintiff's sole federal claim is moot and, therefore, Plaintiff has presented no triable issue of material fact.
Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court specified its reasons for granting Defendants' motion and denying Plaintiff's motion, with references to the evidence that indicates no triable issues of fact exist, in a written Order filed on October 22, 2019. (Dkt. No. 63).
JUDGMENT
By reason of said Order, Defendants Barchester Temple City, L.P., Bar-CA Independent I, Inc., and Garfield Beach CVS, LLC are the prevailing parties on their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and thus are entitled to judgment as set forth below:
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows:
1. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff;
2. Plaintiff shall take nothing by way of his First Amended Complaint;
3. Plaintiff's federal claim pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act is dismissed with prejudice on the merits;
4. Plaintiff's state law claim pursuant to the California Unruh Civil Rights Act is dismissed without prejudice; and
5. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied. Dated: November 15, 2019
/s/_________
The Honorable André Birotte Jr.
United States District Judge