From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Whitaker v. Larchmont Vill. Plaza

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 20, 2020
CV 19-09424 DSF (GJSx) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 20, 2020)

Opinion

CV 19-09424 DSF (GJSx)

07-20-2020

BRIAN WHITAKER, Plaintiff, v. LARCHMONT VILLAGE PLAZA, et al., Defendants.


JUDGMENT

The Court having granted a motion for summary judgment and declined supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claim,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff take nothing, that Plaintiff's first cause of action be dismissed with prejudice and the second cause of action be dismissed without prejudice to filing in state court, and that Defendant recover costs of suit pursuant to a bill of costs filed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: July 20, 2020

/s/_________

Dale S. Fischer

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Whitaker v. Larchmont Vill. Plaza

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 20, 2020
CV 19-09424 DSF (GJSx) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 20, 2020)
Case details for

Whitaker v. Larchmont Vill. Plaza

Case Details

Full title:BRIAN WHITAKER, Plaintiff, v. LARCHMONT VILLAGE PLAZA, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 20, 2020

Citations

CV 19-09424 DSF (GJSx) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 20, 2020)

Citing Cases

Giluso v. Burberry Ltd.

Burberry primarily relies on caselaw involving architectural barriers to entry in which courts deemed a…