Brian Whitaker v. Prime Oil Management, L.L.C. et al

Filing 25

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION AND DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER STATE LAW CLAIM by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief und er the ADA because he has not demonstrated a real and immediate threat of repeated injury. Plaintiff's ADA claim is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice. Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (iv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV 20-10649-MWF (JEMx)
Date: April 26, 2021
Title:
Brian Whitaker v. Prime Oil Management, L.L.C. et al.
Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge
Deputy Clerk:
Rita Sanchez

Court Reporter:
Not Reported

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None Present

Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION AND
DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTION OVER STATE LAW CLAIM
On April 8, 2021, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why Plaintiff’s
ADA claim for injunctive relief should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction (the “OSC”). (Docket No. 24). Plaintiff was warned that failing to
respond to the OSC on or before April 22, 2021, would result in the dismissal of this
action without prejudice. (Id. at 8). To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the OSC.
Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief under the ADA because he has
not demonstrated a real and immediate threat of repeated injury. Plaintiff’s ADA
claim is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice.
Because the Court has dismissed the ADA claim, the only claim over which it
has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s state law Unruh Act claim. See Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903,
910 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing state law claims under the Unruh Act after losing jurisdiction over ADA
claim).
Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
1