Irma Ramirez v. Fulton Market Place S.C.

Filing 35

ORDER GRANTING #28 SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ADA CLAIM AND RETAINING SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER STATE LAW CLAIMS.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

IRMA RAMIREZ,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Plaintiff,

No. C 15-03793 WHA

v.

12
13

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON ADA CLAIM AND
RETAINING SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTION OVER STATE LAW
CLAIMS

FULTON MARKET PLACE S.C., L.P.,
Defendant.

14

/

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

INTRODUCTION
In this action asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California
disability law, defendant moves for summary judgment of the ADA claims. For the reasons
stated herein, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. In addition, the Court
elects to retain supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims.
STATEMENT
Plaintiff Irma Ramirez suffers from post-polio syndrome and relies on a wheelchair for
mobility. On February 24, 2015, and again on May 25, 2015, plaintiff visited the May Garden
Chinese Restaurant in Santa Rosa, California. On both occasions, she encountered the
following architectural barriers: a narrow access aisle for a disabled parking stall adjacent to
the restaurant; an entrance door with excessive pressure; insufficient space between the
lavatory and toilet; grab bars that were too short; a paper towel dispenser and faucet controls
that were hard to access; and a service counter that was too high (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 19, 21).

1

In her complaint, plaintiff asserted four claims: (1) violation of the ADA (for which

2

she sought injunctive relief); (2) violations of the California Disabled Persons Act; (3)

3

violation of Section 19955 of the California Health and Safety Code; and (4) violations of

4

California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

5

On July 21, 2016, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment of the ADA claim.

6

Defendant asserts that it has voluntarily remedied each of the architectural barriers encountered

7

by plaintiff and that, as such, it is entitled to summary judgment. In her opposition, plaintiff

8

concedes that the remedial measures “render plaintiff’s federal claim moot” and that

9

“plaintiff’s federal claim is now properly subject to dismissal” (Opp. 4).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

It is therefore undisputed that the ADA claim is moot. The central issue that remains is

11

whether the Court should continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state

12

law claims. Defendant asks the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and to dismiss the

13

state law claims without prejudice. Plaintiff asks the Court to retain supplemental jurisdiction

14

over the state law claims.

15

On August 4, 2016, plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, which is set

16

for hearing on September 22, 2016. In support of her motion for summary judgment, plaintiff

17

submits a unilateral stipulation waiving damages above or beyond the minimum statutory

18

amount of $4,000 per incident (Dkt. No. 30-4).

19
20

On August 25, 2016, the Court held a hearing on defendant’s summary judgment
motion. Counsel for plaintiff did not attend the hearing.

21

ANALYSIS

22

A federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “(1) the claim

23

raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the

24

claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has

25

dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances,

26

there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. 1367(c). A district

27

court’s decision as to whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after

28
2

1

all federal claims are resolved is “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc.,

2

556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009).

3

Plaintiff argues that although her only federal claim is admittedly moot, the Court

4

should elect to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

5

Plaintiff argues that dismissal of plaintiff’s state law claims “would run contrary to this Court’s

6

practice of favoring the consolidated resolution of disability access claims as embodied in

7

General Order 56.”

8

This order concludes that the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is

9

appropriate here. First, judicial economy counsels in favor of continued supplemental

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

jurisdiction. Pursuant to the case management order, non-expert discovery will close on

11

August 31, 2016 (Dkt. No. 21). Plaintiff has already been deposed. Second, the cost and

12

inconvenience to the parties of ginning up new litigation over the same premises on similar

13

issues counsels in favor of the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. The Court

14

therefore elects to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law

15

claims.

16
17

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the

18

ADA claims is GRANTED. In addition, the Court elects to retain supplemental jurisdiction

19

over plaintiff’s state-law claims. The deadlines set in the case management scheduling order

20

remain in effect (Dkt. No. 21).

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: August 26, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
3