UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 19, 2010
LA OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND DOE 1 THROUGH DOE 10, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, COUNTER-CLAIMANT
LA OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; AND VALLEY OUTDOOR, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION COUNTER-DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alicemarie H. Stotler United States District Court Judge
NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT
[Assigned to the Honorable Alicemarie H. Stotler, Courtroom 10-A]
The motion of defendant City of Los Angeles ("City"), for Summary Judgment, Or In the Alternative, Order Specifying Material Facts That Appear Without Substantial Controversy, regarding the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") filed October 13, 2009, by plaintiffs LA Outdoor Advertising, Inc. ("LA Outdoor") and Valley Outdoor, Inc. ("Valley Outdoor") against the City came on regularly for hearing at 10:00 a.m. on July 12, 2010, in Courtroom 10-A, Alicemarie H. Stotler, United States District Court Judge, presiding.
The Court, having granted defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, directs the Clerk to enter this judgment in favor of defendant City and against plaintiffs LA Outdoor and Valley Outdoor.
The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over defendant's counterclaims because all claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3). The counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice.
The parties shall bear their own costs and fees.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.