Garcia v. Sunseri

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 5, 2023
• Docket: 5:21-cv-09115
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 ORLANDO GARCIA, Case No. 5:21-cv-09115-EJD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DECLINING TO EXERCISE 10 v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

11 GARY JAMES SUNSERI, et al.,

Defendants. 12

13 Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendants seeking money damages and injunctive 14 relief for violations of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the California 15 Unruh Civil Rights Act. ECF No. 1. 16 On April 11, 2022, the parties entered into a consent decree that resolved the injunctive 17 relief requested but did not resolve the issue of money damages. ECF No. 20. On June 22, 2022, 18 the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not dismiss its ADA claim and 19 decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the California Unruh Act claim. ECF No. 31. 20 On February 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a status report indicating that he has no objection to the 21 Court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim. Id. ¶ 14. 22 Plaintiff’s ADA claim is subject to dismissal because the parties have already settled 23 Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants for injunctive relief. “The only available relief to private 24 plaintiffs under the ADA is injunctive.” Gastelum v. Blue Diamond Hosp. LLC, 2022 WL 25 4292957, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2022) (citing Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 26 939, 946 (9th Cir. 2011)). Accordingly, because there is no other relief Plaintiff may obtain under 27 the ADA, Plaintiff’s ADA claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 1 Because the only federal claim in the Complaint has been dismissed, Plaintiff's Unruh 2 || claim may only persist under supplemental jurisdiction. However, “[i]n the usual case in which all 3 federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the 4 [supplemental] jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will 5 point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Sanford v. 6 MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010); see also United Mine Workers of Am. v. 7 Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (“[I]f the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though 8 || not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well.”’). 9 Furthermore, Plaintiff has withdrawn any objection to the Court declining to exercise 10 || supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh claim. ECF No. 38. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Unruh 11 claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND and WITHOUT PREJUDICE to filing in 12 state court. 13 The Clerk shall close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: April 5, 2023 2 16

eQOD. EDWARD J. DAVILA 2 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || Case No.: 5:21-cv-09115-EJD ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT