Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01312/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01312-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

SANDI RUSH,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv1312-LAB (POR)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

vs.

ISLANDS RESTAURANTS, LP, etc.,

et al.,

Defendants.

Over the course of this litigation, a number of claims have been dismissed, and

Defendant Ridgeway/Bradford Partnership was dismissed as a party. The only remaining

claims pertained to accessibility of the parking lot outside the Islands Restaurant Plaintiff had

visited. Those claims were claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (for

injunctive relief) and under California law (for both injunctive relief and damages). On

October 23, 2012, with trial scheduled, Plaintiff’s counsel Lynn Hubbard III filed a declaration

stating that the restaurant was generally compliant with the law, and he did not intend to go

to trial. The Court therefore issued an order vacating the trial, and ordering Plaintiff to file a

joint motion to dismiss no later than November 15, 2012 (unless Defendants objected, in

which case they were to file a notice). The order informed the parties that if no joint motion

and no objections were filed, the entire case would be dismissed without prejudice as moot.

Instead of complying with the Court’s order, Plaintiff filed a joint motion to dismiss

(signed by all parties) on November 19 (the “Joint Motion”). The Joint Motion asked “that this

- 1 - 11cv1312

Case 3:11-cv-01312-LAB-DHB Document 57 Filed 12/18/12 Page 1 of 3
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

Court dismiss the Americans with Disabilities Act claims in this matter with prejudice and

dismiss all State law claims without prejudice due to mootness and pursuant to FRCP

41(a)(2).” (Docket no. 54 at 2:2–6.)

The Joint Motion appeared to contain a scrivener’s error, confusing the federal and

state claims. The complaint brings claims for both damages and injunctive relief under

California law. (Docket no. 1 (Complaint), ¶¶ 38, 39, 46, 47, 52.) But—with exceptions not

applicable here—a request for damages cannot be moot. Bernhardt v. Cnty. of Los Angeles,

279 F.3d 862, 872 (9th Cir. 2002) (because plaintiff was seeking damages, claim was not

mooted by changed circumstances). Secondarily, moot claims are nonjusticiable, and are

therefore properly dismissed without prejudice. 

1

The Court therefore corrected what appeared to be an error and issued an order

(Docket no. 55) dismissing all claims for injunctive relief as moot, all other claims with

prejudice, and the entire action without leave to amend. Plaintiff has now filed a motion

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to correct this judgment. The motion shows what the Court

thought was a scrivener’s error was in fact deliberate, although no less erroneous. The

motion shows that Plaintiff’s counsel interpreted the Court’s order as dismissing the entire

case with prejudice, which is wrong. The motion also argues that the real distinction is

between state and federal law, not between claims for injunctive relief and other claims,

which is also wrong. The motion gives no reasons why the correction is legally appropriate

or required.

/ / /

The Court is aware this distinction is not always observed. Courts, including this 1

Court, have often dismissed claims as moot with prejudice, where it is clear they cannot be

refiled later or in a different court, and where res judicata is not a concern. But dismissal with

prejudice is an adjudication on the merits, and may—as here—create problems where the

plaintiff is concerned about problems recurring. See Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953,

956 (9 Cir. 2002) (citing Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 285 (1961) and Fed. R. th

Civ. P. 41(b)) (discussing whether case was dismissed with prejudice, for res judicata

purposes); see also Docket no. 45 (ex parte motion for TRO, expressing Plaintiff’s fear that

Defendants’ behavior will be repeated indefinitely). Also, in the absence of jurisdiction the

Court cannot adjudicate claims on the merits, but should, strictly speaking, dismiss without

prejudice. Fleck & Assocs., Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 471 F.3d 1100, 1106–07 (9 Cir. 2006) th

(because plaintiff lacked standing, court lacked jurisdiction and should have dismissed all

claims without prejudice).

- 2 - 11cv1312

Case 3:11-cv-01312-LAB-DHB Document 57 Filed 12/18/12 Page 2 of 3
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

The Rule 60(b) motion, as filed, cannot be granted because what it requests is

contrary to law. It is therefore SUMMARILY DENIED. The Court believes Plaintiff seeks the

dismissal of all claims for injunctive relief, whether brought under state or federal law, as

moot (without prejudice but without leave to amend); and the dismissal of state-law claims

for damages without prejudice. This would typically be the outcome in an Americans with

Disabilities Act case where federal claims are dismissed and the only claims remaining are

state-law claims for damages, although whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction is in the

Court’s discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (setting forth circumstances in which a district

court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims).

If this understanding is correct, Plaintiff is directed to file another motion requesting

it. If Plaintiff has some other type of dismissal in mind, he must file a motion lucidly

explaining what he seeks and why it is legally appropriate. In either case, a joint motion is

preferable although an ex parte application is also acceptable. A noticed motion should not

be filed. Either motion must be filed without exception no later than Wednesday,

December 27, 2012.

Because Plaintiff has made clear he is unwilling to go to trial, failure to file a motion

as ordered within the time permitted will result in this case remaining dismissed as previously

ordered. Any motion filed after the deadline will be summarily denied for failure to comply

with the Court’s orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 17, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cv1312

Case 3:11-cv-01312-LAB-DHB Document 57 Filed 12/18/12 Page 3 of 3