Shaw v. Karan & N. Inc et al

Filing 69

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 59 Motion for Summary Judgment (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2013). The clerk shall close this file.

1

*E-Filed: December 4, 2013*

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

CECIL SHAW,

No. C12-04687 HRL
Plaintiff,

12
v.
13

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
LORENA SOTOMAYOR’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

KAPTAN GHIMIRE, ET AL.,
14
15

[Re: Docket No. 59]
Defendants.
____________________________________/

16
Plaintiff Cecil Shaw sued defendants pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
17
and related California law for alleged ADA violations at a liquor store and small Mexican restaurant
18
within the store. The claims were resolved by a consent decree between all parties. See Order on
19
Consent Decree, dkt. 36. Defendant Lorena Sotomayor, who owned the restaurant, now moves for
20
summary judgment. Shaw opposes the motion for summary judgment. However, because this
21
action has already been finally adjudicated by the entry of the consent decree, the Court will
22
construe this as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Rufo v.
23
Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 378 (concluding that a consent decree is subject to the
24
rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees, including Rule 60(b)). The matter is
25
deemed suitable for determination without oral argument, and the December 3, 2013 hearing is
26
vacated. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, the
27
motion is denied.
28

1

Sotomayor argues that Shaw did not have standing to bring his ADA claim against her

2

because her restaurant had already closed by the time he filed the complaint. And because Shaw did

3

not have standing, the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, and the consent decree is

4

ineffective as against Sotomayor.

5

“Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4), a litigant may attack a judgment as void due to lack of subject

pertain[s] to a federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction under Article III . . . .” White v. Lee, 227

8

F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). “To establish standing to pursue injunctive relief, which is the

9

only relief available to private plaintiffs under the ADA, [a plaintiff] must demonstrate a real and

10

For the Northern District of California

matter jurisdiction . . . .” Wages v. IRS, 915 F.2d 1230, 1234 (9th Cir. 1990). “[S]tanding . . .

7

United States District Court

6

immediate threat of repeated injury in the future.” Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports, 631 F3d 939, 946

11

(9th Cir. 2011) (footnote omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, there was no threat of

12

repeated future injury because Sotomayor’s restaurant was closed before Shaw even filed the

13

complaint. Thus, Shaw did not have standing to bring an ADA claim against Sotomayor.

14

However, Shaw still had a valid ADA claim against the owners of the liquor store, as well as

15

a valid claim for damages under California law against Sotomayor. Correspondingly, the Court had

16

original jurisdiction over Shaw’s ADA claims against the owners of the liquor store, as well as

17

supplemental jurisdiction over Shaw’s state law claims against Sotomayor because they formed

18

“part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

19

Sotomayor presents no reason why it was improper for the Court to exercise supplemental

20

jurisdiction, and the consent decree Sotomayor signed specifically includes a jurisdictional

21

statement providing that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Shaw’s California law claims.

22

Accordingly, Sotomayor’s motion is denied. The clerk shall close this file.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 3, 2013
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28

2

1

C12-04687 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

Steven Benjamin Solomon [e-mail]

3

Kenneth Randolph Moore [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

4
Mark Steven Carlquist [e-mail], [e-mail]
5
6

Tanya Eugene Moore [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

7

C12-04687 HRL Notice will be mailed to:

8

Lorena Soto Mayor DeFlores
1921 California Street, #8
Mountain View, CA 94040

9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3