Filed: May 28, 2019
Latest Update: May 28, 2019
Summary: [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ANDR BIROTTE, Jr. , District Judge . Defendants CITY OF LONG BEACH'S and ASHLEY WIEGELMAN'S (collectively the "City") Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Partial Summary Judgment, against Plaintiffs JAYANTIBHAI PATEL dba PRINCESS INN, PRAVIN L. PATEL; DIPAK L. PATEL; DAKSHA PATEL ("Plaintiffs") First Amended Complaint came on for hearing before the Court on May 3, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., the Honorable Andr Birotte Jr., District Judge presiding. On, May 1
Summary: [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ANDR BIROTTE, Jr. , District Judge . Defendants CITY OF LONG BEACH'S and ASHLEY WIEGELMAN'S (collectively the "City") Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Partial Summary Judgment, against Plaintiffs JAYANTIBHAI PATEL dba PRINCESS INN, PRAVIN L. PATEL; DIPAK L. PATEL; DAKSHA PATEL ("Plaintiffs") First Amended Complaint came on for hearing before the Court on May 3, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., the Honorable Andr Birotte Jr., District Judge presiding. On, May 14..
More
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
ANDRÉ BIROTTE, Jr., District Judge.
Defendants CITY OF LONG BEACH'S and ASHLEY WIEGELMAN'S (collectively the "City") Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Partial Summary Judgment, against Plaintiffs JAYANTIBHAI PATEL dba PRINCESS INN, PRAVIN L. PATEL; DIPAK L. PATEL; DAKSHA PATEL ("Plaintiffs") First Amended Complaint came on for hearing before the Court on May 3, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., the Honorable André Birotte Jr., District Judge presiding.
On, May 14, 2019, after the hearing on the matter and after fully considering the evidence presented, the issues having been duly heard, the Court issued an Order Granting the City's Motion for Judgment in its entirety. (Docket No. 81). A copy of the Court's Order is attached here to as Exhibit A.
Therefore, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES and DECREES:
1. Judgement shall be entered in favor of Defendants City of Long Beach and Ashley Wiegelman on Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.
2. Plaintiffs' shall take nothing from Defendants regarding their First Amended Complaint
3. Defendants shall be entitled to costs of suit on the First Amended Complaint.
4. At the hearing, the Plaintiffs and the City requested that if the Court granted the City's Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety, then the Court should exercise its discretion and dismiss the City of Long Beach's Counter-Complaint without prejudice. In light of the Court's ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court finds that the Counter-Complaint asserts only state law claims. When federal claims are disposed of before trial, and minimal work has been done on the state law claims, it is appropriate for pendent state law claims to be dismissed. (28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).) Having considered the contents of the Counter-Complaint and the request of the parties, the Court exercises its discretion to decline to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the City of Long Beach's Counter-Complaint and dismisses the Counter-Complaint without prejudice. Neither party shall be entitled to recover costs on the Counter-Claim.
5. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for purposes of enforcing this Judgment.
