JUDGMENT

GEORGE H. WU, District Judge.

Defendant GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT's (the "School District") Motion for Summary Judgment/Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's, A.P., claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Article I, Section 7(A) of the California Constitution, Article IX, Section 1 and 5 of the California Constitution, and Negligence was heard on March 20, 2017. Surisa Rivers, Esq., appeared for Plaintiff, A.P. Nancy Doumanian, Esq., appeared for Defendant.

After considering the moving, opposition, and reply briefs, the evidence submitted by the parties and the arguments presented by the parties' respective counsel, this Court finds that:

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR, IT IS SO ORDERED.

EXHIBIT "A"

With the following further comments, the Court confirms the tentative ruling issued on March 20, 2017 as to the motion for partial summary judgment filed by defendant Glendale Unified School District ("Defendant") — and adopts it as the Court's final ruling. As counsel for plaintiff A.P., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, C.P. ("Plaintiff") referenced at the 3/20/17 oral argument, the Court sustained objections to Plaintiffs evidentiary submissions filed in connection with the earlier summary judgment motion in this case. The Court did so in part because consideration of that evidence was necessary due to the fact that Defendant could not prevail on that motion. See Docket No. 44, at p.g. 3 of 7 n. 1 ("Future consideration of the issue of the release may or may not make appropriate consideration of some of the evidentiaiy material the Court has presently excluded from its consideration (primarily, at the present time) on relevance grounds."). Nowhere did the Court indicate that it was not prepared to consider appropriate extrinsic evidence on the contract interpretation issue underlying these motions.

In the end, however, as noted in the tentative ruling issued today, Plaintiffs goal (in part) is to have the Court consider extrinsic evidence that would, in the end (in Plaintiffs view), result in a conflict with the release terms in the settlement agreement already clearly stating that Plaintiff was releasing claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. For reasons already delineated in the tentative ruling (see pages 7-9 of 10, therein), under applicable law, the Court could not discount that clear and specific language no matter the result of the Court's analysis of extrinsic evidence. As a result, the Court will confirm the tentative ruling issued today as its final ruling on the pending motion for partial summary judgment.

However, the Court invites further briefing on the question of jurisdiction. Two things are clear: 1) the Court presently has jurisdiction by way of supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); and 2) the Court may not remand this matter to state court, because it was not originally filed in state court. The only question is whether the Court should exercise its discretion to maintain jurisdiction over the two remaining state law claims, or whether it should instead invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to decline continuing supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss those claims without prejudice, allowing Plaintiff to rei file them in state court. Taking into consideration the factors employed in a court's decision whether to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims once all federal claims are resolved, the parties should provide their views in briefs of no more than 7 pages due March 29, 2017. If the Court requires responsive briefing from the parties beyond those initial briefs, it will indicate that to the parties following its review of the initial briefs.

EXHIBIT "B"

On March 22, 2017, this Court granted Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment as to Plaintiff's first, second, fourth and fifth causes of action. See Docket Nos. 65, 66. Additionally, the Court asked for further briefing on the issue of whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining two state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). See Docket No. 66.

Now having reviewed the parties' submissions in regards to that issue (see Docket Nos. 67, 68), the Court declines to exercise its discretion as to those causes of action and dismisses them without Prejudice. It is the Court's understanding that Plaintiffs have already filed an action in state court (see Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC6551816) which covers (or can cover) their remaining state court claims.

In light of the above, Defendant is to prepare a proposed Judgment (within the next five business days) which includes the above rulings.