Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02859/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02859-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

3:18-cv-02859-BTM-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES RUTHERFORD, an 

individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAPA JOHN’S #2823, a business 

of unknown form; LEMON GROVE 

PLAZA, LP, a California limited 

partnership; and DOES 1-10, 

inclusive, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-02859-BTMAGS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND 

DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

AS MOOT

[ECF Nos. 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16]

Before the Court are Defendant Lemon Grove Plaza, LP’s Motions to 

Dismiss the First Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

Plaintiff’s Notice of Non-Opposition, and Plaintiff’s subsequent Notice of 

Voluntary Dismissal. (ECF Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16). The Non-Opposition avers that 

Plaintiff recently learned that Papa John’s restaurant #2823, the subject of this 

Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit, permanently closed during the pendency 

of the case. (ECF No. 15). Consequently, Plaintiff believes he cannot 

“demonstrate a real and immediate threat of repeated injury in the future” and 

Case 3:18-cv-02859-BTM-AGS Document 17 Filed 04/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:18-cv-02859-BTM-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

therefore does not have standing to pursue injunctive relief. Chapman v. Pier 1 

Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 946 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations 

omitted). Although the Motions to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint did not 

raise this relevant fact or address it arguments about standing, Plaintiff asks the 

Court to grant the Motions to Dismiss without prejudice. (See ECF Nos. 13, 14). 

The Court construes Plaintiff’s Notice of Non-Opposition as a motion for 

voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The Court 

DISMISSES the action without prejudice, and DENIES the Motions to Dismiss

the Complaint and First Amended Complaint as moot. (ECF Nos. 6, 7, 13, 14). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02859-BTM-AGS Document 17 Filed 04/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2