Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05554/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05554-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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 

Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALBERT DYTCH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BELCAMPO MEAT COMPANY, LLC, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 18-cv-05554-MMC 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

FILE STATUS REPORT 

 Plaintiff Albert Dytch filed the instant action on September 11, 2018, naming as 

defendants Belcampo Meat Company, LLC ("Belcampo"), CIM Group, L.P. ("CIM"), and 

Jack London Square Associates, LLC ("Jack London Square"). On October 4, 2018, 

plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims against Jack London Square, leaving Belcampo 

and CIM as defendants. 

Now before the Court is plaintiff's "Acceptance of Defendant's Offer of Judgment 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68," filed February 8, 2019, attached to which is Belcampo's 

"Offer of Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68." Having read and 

considered said filings, the Court rules as follows. 

Ordinarily, upon a plaintiff's acceptance of a defendant's offer, judgment would be 

entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a). Where, as here, however, there are multiple parties, 

judgment may be entered as to fewer than all such parties "only if the court expressly 

determines that there is no just reason for delay." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)1; see also 

 1

In this instance, no party has sought such finding, nor are grounds therefor 

otherwise apparent from the record. 

Case 3:18-cv-05554-MMC Document 24 Filed 02/20/19 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 

Northern District of California 

Anderson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 630 F.2d 677, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1980) (holding order 

"adjudicating only some of the claims" is not final until all claims are resolved). 

The instant offer states it "is intended to resolve all of [p]laintiff's claims in this 

action" (see Offer at 2:17-18), CIM has not filed a response to the complaint,2 and plaintiff 

has not sought entry of default, all of which might suggest plaintiff is no longer pursuing 

his claims against said defendant. On the other hand, there is no joinder in the offer by 

CIM, nor is CIM expressly referenced therein. 

Under such circumstances, the Court hereby DIRECTS plaintiff to file, no later 

than March 1, 2019, a status report indicating whether he continues to pursue his claims 

against CIM, and, if so, the status of the parties' compliance with the procedures 

mandated by the Scheduling Order as modified by court-approved extensions (see Doc. 

Nos. 4, 22), and, if not, how he proposes to resolve the remaining claims. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 20, 2019 

 MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

 United States District Judge 

 2

CIM's response was due no later than December 14, 2018. (See Stip., filed 

November 20, 2018.) 

Case 3:18-cv-05554-MMC Document 24 Filed 02/20/19 Page 2 of 2