Whitaker v. Huynh

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRIAN WHITAKER, Case No. 21-cv-08021-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v.

10 GIAU M. HUYNH, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Plaintiff Brian Whitaker brings this case under the Americans with Disabilities Act 14 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., and California’s Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53, to 15 compel Defendant Giau Huynh to provide accessible paths of travel, door hardware, and outdoor 16 tables at Wellness Nails Care, located at 405 Arguello Blvd., San Francisco, California. ECF No. 17 1. However, Whitaker has now indicated that Huynh made structural changes and that these 18 barriers no longer exist. See Pl.’s Status Reports, ECF No. 30 & 32. 19 Under the ADA, plaintiffs may only seek injunctive relief and attorney’s fees. See 42 20 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1); Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 401–02 (1968). “Once 21 a defendant has remedied all ADA violations complained of by a plaintiff, the plaintiff’s claims 22 become moot and he or she loses standing, which means the court no longer has subject-matter 23 jurisdiction over the ADA claim.” Johnson v. Case Ventures, LLC, 2020 WL 4747908, at *2 24 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2020) (citing Grove v. De La Cruz, 407 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1130-31 (C.D. Cal. 25 2005)). Thus, it appears that Whitaker’s ADA claim is moot and must be dismissed for lack of 26 jurisdiction. Further, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has 27 dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). A court 1 claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also, e.g., Oliver v. 2 Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 911 (9th Cir. 2011); Case Ventures, 2020 WL 4747908, at *3; 3 Yates v. Delano Partners, LLC, 2012 WL 4944269, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2012); R.K. v. 4 || Hayward Unified Sch, Dist., 2008 WL 1847221, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008). As the Supreme 5 Court and Ninth Circuit have “often repeated,” “in the usual case in which all federal-law claims 6 are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors will point toward declining to exercise 7 || jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 8 (9th Cir. 1997), supplemented by 121 F.3d 714 (9th Cir. 1997) (alterations omitted) (quoting 9 Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)). 10 Accordingly, Whitaker is ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be 11 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Whitaker shall file a response by May 19, 2022. q 12 If a response is filed, the Court shall either issue an order based on the response or conduct a 5 13 || hearing on June 2, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. by Zoom video conference. The webinar link and S 14 || instructions are located at https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/hixson-thomas-s-tsh/, IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 5 17 || Dated: May 11, 2022 18 TAA. □ THOMAS S. HIXSON 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28