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.

Download PDF
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THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 For the Northern District of California NOT FOR CITATION 8 United States District Court 7 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 CECIL SHAW, No. C12-04687 HRL Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT LORENA SOTOMAYOR’S MOTION FOR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 3 Kenneth Randolph Moore,, 4 Mark Steven Carlquist, 5 6 Tanya Eugene Moore,,,, 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?