T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s the s e appe a l s a r e s ui t abl e f or ** d e c is io n w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J E R R Y D OR AN , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. 7- E L E V E N , I N C . D B A 7- E l e ve n; S O U T H L A N D C O R P ., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N os . 09- 55119 09- 55279 D. C . No . 8 : 0 4 - c v - 0 1 1 2 5 - J VS - AN ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J a m e s V . S e l na , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J e rryD o r an ap p e a ls f

r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e r s a w ar d in g c o s ts to d e f e n d an t7 - El e v e n , I n c . a n dd e n y i n g r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n h i s a c t i o n a l l e g i n g c l a i ms unde rthe A m e r i c ans w i th D i s abi l i t i e s A c t( “ A D A ” ) a nd s t a t e l aw . W e ha ve 

# FI LED OC T 06 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 55119 2 ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w f o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . Br o wn v . L uc k yStor es , I

nc ., 2 4 6 F .3 d1 1 8 2 , 1 1 8 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( c o s ts ) ; Sc h. D is t. N o. 1J, Mul tno m ah C ou nt

y, O r. v. A Can dS

, Inc. , 5 F . 3d 1255, 1262 ( 9th C i r . 1993) ( r e c ons i de r a t i on) . W e r e ve r s e a nd r e m and. T he di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss ed D oran’ s A D A cl ai m and con clud ed that d efen d an tw as n o ten t i t l edt o co st s b ecau se th e cl ai m w as n o tfri v o l o u s, u n r e a s o n ab le , o rw ith o u t f o u n d a tio n . Se e Br o wn , 24 6 F . 3d at11 90 . T he di stri ct courtthen d eni ed D oran’ s r equestt o p l ea d d i vers i ty j uri sdi ct i on , di sm i ss ed D o r an ’s s ta te law c la im s w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e to r e f

ilin g th e m in f

e d e r a l o rs ta te c o u rt, and aw ar ded cost s t o d ef endanton these st at e l aw cl ai m s. T he st at e l aw cl ai m s are n o w p e n d in g in d is tr ic t c o u rt. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e dits d is c r e tio n w h e n it aw ar d e dc o s ts to d e f

e n d an t o n th e s ta te law c la im s , b e c au s e d e f e n d an t w a s n o t a p r e v a ilin g p artyo n th e s e c la im s . See F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ; cf . Mi les v. Ca lifo rn ia , 3 2 0 F .3 d9 8 6 , 9 8 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( d e f e n d an t w a s p r e v a ilin g p arty w he r e di s m i s s a l e l i m i na t e d c l a i m f r om f urthe rpr oc e e di ngs i n f

e de r a l c ourta nd thu s m at er i al l y a l t er ed the l egalre l at i on shi p o f the part i es ). D or an’ s unoppos e d r e que s tf orj udi c i a l not i c e i s gr ant e d. RE V E RS E D a n d RE MAND E D.