Johnson v. Sandhu, et al.

Filing 30

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/14/2014 ORDERING #29 Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to the First Cause of Action under the ADA; Therefore, Plaintiff' ADA claim is DISMISSED with prejudice; #15 Since the federal ADA claim is dismissed, the Court DECLINES to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's supplemental state law claims which allege violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, and for negligence; Therefore, Plaintiff's supplemental state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. [ 28 ] (Reader, L)

1
2
3

Keith D. Cable, Esq., SBN 170055
CABLE GALLAGHER
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
Folsom, CA 95630
916/608-7995 Tel.
916/608-7986 Fax

4
5

Attorneys for Defendant
GURENDERJEET SANDHU

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SCOTT JOHNSON,

Case No.: 2:13-CV-01783-JAM-KJN

11
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

12
vs.
13
14
15
16
17

GURLAL SINGH SANDHU;
GURENDERJEET SANDHU; and DOES
1-10,
Defendants.

Date: November 5, 2014
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Courtroom: 6 (14th Floor)
Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez

On November 5, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 6, Plaintiff Scott Johnson’s motion for

18

summary judgment came before the Court for hearing. Plaintiff appeared through counsel,

19

Russell Handy of The Center for Disability Access. Defendant Gurenderjeet Sandhu

20

appeared through counsel, Keith D. Cable of the Cable Gallagher law firm.

21
22
23
24
25

1
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1
2
3

Having reviewed the moving and opposition papers, and having heard oral argument,
the Court rules as follows:
Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to the First Cause of Action under the ADA. Plaintiff has

4

failed to meet his burden under FRCP 56(a) that there is no genuine dispute that the ADA

5

barriers remain. In fact, during oral argument, Plaintiff’s counsel conceded that the barriers

6

alleged to have existed at the time of Plaintiff’s visits have been rendered ADA-compliant.

7

Since injunctive relief is the only remedy available under the ADA, when an alleged ADA

8

violation is remedied, it renders a pending ADA claim moot. See Feezor v. Patterson, 896

9

F.Supp.2d 895, 901, n.4 (E.D. Cal. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s ADA claim is dismissed with

10

prejudice.

11

Conversely, and in light of Plaintiff’s concession that the alleged barriers have been

12

remedied, the Court grants summary judgment sua sponte in favor of Defendant as to the

13

First Cause of Action under the ADA. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett (1986) 477 U.S. 317, 326,

14

106 S.Ct. 2548, 2554.

15

Since the federal ADA claim is dismissed, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction

16

over Plaintiff’s supplemental state law claims which allege violations of the Unruh Civil Rights

17

Act, Disabled Persons Act, and for negligence. See Religious Tech. Ctr v. Wollersheim, 971

18

F.2d 364, 367-68 (9th Cir. 1992)(the general rule is when federal claims are dismissed before

19

trial pendent state claims should also be dismissed). Therefore, Plaintiff’s supplemental state

20

law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

21
22
23
24
25

2
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3
4

DATED: 11/14/2014.
/s/ John A. Mendez_______________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

3
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT