Elness v. Sangha and Sons, LLC, 2:17-cv-02289-WBS-CKD. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180409783
Visitors: 12
Filed: Apr. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 06, 2018
Summary: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ONLY , WITHOUT PREJUDICE , PURSUANT TO FRCP RULE 41(a)(2) WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Plaintiff CARA ELNESS ("Plaintiff") and Defendants SANGHA AND SONS, LLC, dba QUALITY INN & SUITES CAMERON PARK; AMARJIT SINGH SANGHA aka "ADAM" ("Hotel Defendants"); and CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; ("Choice") (collectively, the "Parties") hereby request that the Court dismiss Choic
Summary: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ONLY , WITHOUT PREJUDICE , PURSUANT TO FRCP RULE 41(a)(2) WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Plaintiff CARA ELNESS ("Plaintiff") and Defendants SANGHA AND SONS, LLC, dba QUALITY INN & SUITES CAMERON PARK; AMARJIT SINGH SANGHA aka "ADAM" ("Hotel Defendants"); and CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; ("Choice") (collectively, the "Parties") hereby request that the Court dismiss Choice..
More
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ONLY, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PURSUANT TO FRCP RULE 41(a)(2)
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Plaintiff CARA ELNESS ("Plaintiff") and Defendants SANGHA AND SONS, LLC, dba QUALITY INN & SUITES CAMERON PARK; AMARJIT SINGH SANGHA aka "ADAM" ("Hotel Defendants"); and CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; ("Choice") (collectively, the "Parties") hereby request that the Court dismiss Choice only, without prejudice, pursuant to FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). This request is based on the following good cause:
1) Counsel for Plaintiff has met and conferred with counsel for Choice and has received the following representations:
2) Pursuant to the Franchise Agreement entered into by Choice and the Hotel Defendants, the Hotel Defendants are obligated to defend and indemnify by Choice in connection with this lawsuit which arises out of alleged disability accessibility issues at a hotel property ("Hotel Property") owned and operated by the Hotel Defendants.
3) Pursuant to the Franchise Agreement, Choice has no control over the subject physical premises or any accessibility issues at the Hotel Property. Under the terms of the Franchise Agreement the Hotel Defendants are solely responsible for maintaining the condition of the Hotel Property and for ensuring that it is in compliance with the ADA as well as all other state and federal laws that apply to the Hotel Property. .
4) Absent additional facts revealed in discovery that Choice is either a) a necessary party to resolve Plaintiff's injunctive relief claims, or b) that Choice is the direct or proximate cause of Plaintiff's damages under State law, Plaintiff believes Choice should be dismissed without prejudice.
The Parties therefore requests that the Court dismiss Choice for good cause shown without prejudice thereby allowing Plaintiff to request that Choice be brought back into the case should additional facts in discovery warrant Choice's participation in the case.
ORDER
For good cause shown, IT IS SO ORDERED. Defendant Choice Hotels International, Inc. shall be dismissed from the case without prejudice.
Source: Leagle
