Bryant v. Jew et al

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING 15 Motion to Substitute; ORDER DECLINING to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction; and ORDER CLOSING CASE signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/19/2018. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RACHEL BRYANT,

12
13
14
15
16

CASE NO. 1:17-CV-1259 AWI BAM
Plaintiff

v.
BEN MOON JEW, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
SUBSTITUTE AND ORDER
DECLINING TO EXERCISE
SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND
CLOSING CASE

Defendants
(Doc. Nos. 14, 15)

17
18

On April 26, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a notice of death. See Doc. No. 14. Plaintiff

19

Rachel Bryant died sometime during the pendency of this case. See id. Plaintiff alleged

20

violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the California Unruh Act,

21

and the California Health & Safety Code. See Doc. No. 1. On June 18, 2018, Plaintiff’s daughter

22

filed a motion to substitute as a plaintiff in Rachel Bryant’s place. See Doc. No. 13.

23

Title III “provides a private right of action for injunctive relief but no right of action for

24

monetary relief.” Thomas v. Salvation Army S. Terr., 841 F.3d 632, 638 (9t h Cir. 2016). That is,

25

“Damages are not an available remedy to individuals under Title III of the ADA; individuals may

26

receive only injunctive relief.” Ervine v. Desert View Reg’l Med. Ctr. Holdings, LLC, 753 F.3d

27

862, 867 (9th Cir. 2014). When an ADA Title III plaintiff dies, the death renders the claims under

28

Title III for injunctive relief moot because there is no prospect of a future injury. Kalani v.

1

Starbucks Coffe Co., 698 F. App’x 883, 885 (9th Cir. 2017); Southwell v. Summit View of

2

Farragut, LLC, 494 F. App’x 508, 512 (6th Cir. 2012); Wojewski v. Rapid City Reg’l Hosp., Inc.,

3

450 F.3d 338, 342 (8th Cir. 2006); Owens v. Fresno Foods, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69214,

4

*5 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2017); Antonetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

5

190562, *7-*8 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2012). Here, with the death of Plaintiff, her ADA Title III

6

claims are moot and will be dismissed as such. See id.

7

Unlike Plaintiff’s ADA claims, her California law claims do survive her death. See

8

Kalani, 698 F. App’x at 885-86. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the California law

9

claims only through the ADA claim. However, with the mooting of Plaintiff’s ADA Title III

10
11

claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) is implicated.
Under § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental

12

state law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original

13

jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The general rule is that when all federal claims are

14

dismissed before trial, “pendent state law claims also should be dismissed.” Religious Tech.

15

Center v. Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364, 368 (9th Cir. 1992); Schultz v. Sundberg, 759 F.2d 714, 718

16

(9th Cir. 1985). In the specific context of jurisdiction through ADA Title III claims, “courts often

17

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims once the ADA claims

18

have been dismissed.” Wyatt v. Rug Emporium, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68197, *6 (E.D. Cal.

19

May 24, 2016) (and cases cited therein). Here, the Court is aware of no reason why the general

20

rule should not be followed. This case is in a relatively early state, and trial is not set until July

21

16, 2019. Therefore, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the alleged

22

California state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Owens, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69124 at

23

*6; Wyatt, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68197 at *7.

24

Because the Court is declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining

25

state law claims, the Court will deny Ms. Palacios’s motion to substitute. See Rand v. American

26

Nat’l Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82584, *5 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2010) (court retains

27

discretion to deny substitution of a party); Graham v. Henderson, 224 F.R.D. 59, 65 (N.D. N.Y.

28

2004) (same).
2

1

ORDER

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

Plaintiff’s claims under Title III of the ADA are DISMISSED as moot;

4

2.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental

5

jurisdiction over the remaining California state law claims and those claims are

6

DISMISSED without prejudice;

7

3.

Kristina Palacios’s motion to substitute (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED without prejudice; and

8

4.

The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 19, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3