Johnson v. Compton et al

Filing 35

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 6/27/2018 ORDERING that Plaintiffs ADA claim is DISMISSED AS MOOT. The Court DECLINES to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and DISMISSED this claim without prejudice to refiling it in state court. Plaintiff's 30 motion for summary judgment is DENIED AS MOOT. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

SCOTT JOHNSON,

13

16

2:16-cv-02961-JAM-CKD

Plaintiff,

14
15

No.

v.
LARRY D. COMPTON; EL MONTE
RENTS, INC., a California
corporation; and Does 1-10,

17

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants.

18
Scott Johnson (“Plaintiff”) sued Larry D. Compton

19
20

(“Defendant”) alleging that Defendant’s business, El Monte RV

21

Rental, does not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act

22

(ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

23

1.

24

Defendants oppose, arguing Plaintiff’s ADA claim is moot and that

25

the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

26

Opp’n, ECF No. 32.

27

///

28

///

Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment.

Compl., ECF No.
Mot., ECF No. 30.

Finding Plaintiff’s ADA claim is moot, the

1

1

Court dismisses the remaining claim for want of jurisdiction.1

2
3

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

4

Plaintiff suffers from quadriplegia and manual dexterity

5

impairments.

6

mobility.

7

on October 24, 2016.

8

encountered barriers in the parking lot and along the path to the

9

business office entrance.

10

Id.

Johnson Decl. ¶ 2.

He uses a wheelchair for

Plaintiff went to Defendant’s RV rental business
Id. at ¶ 4.

Plaintiff states that he

Id. at ¶¶ 5–18.

In December 2016, Plaintiff sued Defendant in this Court

11

alleging violations of the ADA and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

12

See Compl.

13

business to improve its accessibility.

14

Pl.’s Req. for Produc. of Docs., ECF No. 30-15.

15

2017, Plaintiff’s expert found three remaining barriers.

16

Decl., ECF No. 30-11.

17

opposition that all barriers have been removed.

18

¶ 6.

19

property into ADA compliance.

After being sued, Defendant made alterations to the
Def. Suppl. Resp. to
In September
Waters

Defendant submits evidence in his
Compton Decl.

Plaintiff no longer disputes that Defendant has brought the
Reply, ECF No. 33, p. 1.

20

Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment on the sole

21

remaining issue of whether he should be awarded $8,000 in

22

statutory penalties under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

23

13–15, Reply at 1.

24

that since Plaintiff’s ADA claim is now moot, the Court should

25

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Mot. at

Defendant opposes summary judgment, arguing

Opp’n at 4–8.

26
27
28

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled
for June 5, 2018.
2
1

1

Plaintiff requests the Court retain jurisdiction of his state law

2

claim.

See Reply.

3
4

II. OPINION

5

A.

ADA Claim

6

Private plaintiffs may only seek injunctive relief (i.e.,

7

barrier removal) under the ADA.

8

654 F.3d 903, 905 (9th Cir. 2011).

9

removes the alleged barriers prior to trial, a plaintiff’s ADA

When a defendant voluntarily

10

claim can be mooted.

11

Houses Operating Co., LP, 252 F. Supp. 3d 977, 985 (C.D. Cal.

12

2017) (determining an ADA claim was moot after defendant repaved

13

parking space and access aisle); Johnson v. BBVA Compass Fin.

14

Corp., No. 2:14-CV-2416-JAM-KJN, 2016 WL 1170855, at *1 (E.D.

15

Cal. Mar. 25, 2016) (holding ADA claim was moot after barrier

16

repair).

17

Id.

Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co.,

See, e.g., Vogel v. Winchell’s Donut

Here, Defendant argues that his repair of all the identified

18

barriers moots Plaintiff’s ADA claim.

19

does not dispute Defendant’s argument that the business is now in

20

compliance with the ADA.

21

has not argued that Defendant is likely to lapse in future ADA

22

compliance or had any history of reverting back to ADA

23

noncompliance after repairs.

24

at *2.

25

summary judgment shows that Defendant dutifully brought the

26

business into ADA compliance after being made aware of

27

accessibility barriers.

28

///

Reply at 1.

Opp’n at 4–5.

Plaintiff

Additionally, Plaintiff

See BBVA Compass, 2016 WL 1170855,

Instead, the evidence presented with the motion for

3

1

The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to

2

injunctive relief on his ADA claim.

Plaintiff’s ADA cause of

3

action is moot, and the Court accordingly dismisses it.

4

B.

State Law Claim

5

By dismissing Plaintiff’s ADA claim, the Court has disposed

6

of “all claims over which it ha[d] original jurisdiction.”

7

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

8

under state law, may only be decided if the Court exercises

9

supplemental jurisdiction.

28

Plaintiff’s sole remaining claim, arising

Plaintiff seeks an award of $8,000 on

10

his Unruh Civil Rights Act claim—$4,000 for his June 2016 visit

11

and $4,000 for deterrence.

12

Reply at 6.

“[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are

13

eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered

14

under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy,

15

convenience, fairness, and comity—will point toward declining to

16

exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.”

17

Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988);

18

Johnson v. Kim, No. 214CV00196KJMCKD, 2016 WL 232326, at *3 (E.D.

19

Cal. Jan. 20, 2016).

20

The Court finds that the factors of “judicial economy,

21

convenience, fairness, and comity” do not favor exercise of

22

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim.

23

Oliver, 654 F.3d at 911 (finding the district court did not error

24

in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on state law

25

claims after dismissing ADA claim).

26

district like the Eastern District of California, the Court has

27

an interest in avoiding needless adjudication of state law

28

claims.

See

In an overburdened judicial

Although Plaintiff’s state law claim is predicated on an
4

1

alleged violation of the ADA, this alone does not justify use of

2

the Court’s scarce resources to adjudicate the merits of the

3

remaining state law claim.

4

Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing. His

5

argument that this case has been “heavily litigated” is

6

overstated.

7

order, granting Defendant El Monte summary judgment because it

8

did not own or operate a business on the property.

9

No. 22.

Id. at 4.

The Court issued one prior substantive

Order, ECF

Plaintiff then argues that supplemental jurisdiction

10

must be exercised to prevent him from having to file his Unruh

11

claim in state court “while, simultaneously, wrapping up his

12

prosecution of the ADA claim in federal court.”

13

This argument is irreconcilable with Plaintiff’s earlier

14

acquiescence to the fact that his ADA claim is now moot.

15

at 3.

16

See Baker v. Palo Alto University, Inc., No. 5:13-CV-00546 EJD,

17

2014 WL 631452, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2014) (exercising

18

supplemental jurisdiction where federal claim remained); Delgado

19

v. Orchard Supply Hardware Corp., 826 F. Supp. 2d 1208, 1221

20

(E.D. Cal. 2011) (same); Kohler v. Islands Restaurants, LP, 956

21

F. Supp. 2d 1170, 1174 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (same).

22
23

Reply at 4.

See id.

Also, the cases relied upon by Plaintiff are inapposite.

The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh claim.

24
25
26

III. ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s ADA claim is

27

DISMISSED AS MOOT.

The Court declines to retain supplemental

28

jurisdiction over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and dismisses
5

1

this claim without prejudice to refiling it in state court.

2

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED AS MOOT.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 27, 2018

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6