Johnson v. Otter et al

Filing 37

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIM 1 FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION; DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION; TERMINATING ACTION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/21/2019. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2019)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

SCOTT JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 18-cv-01689-BLF

v.
BRYANT OTTER, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIM 1 FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER
JURISDICTION; DECLINING TO
EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTION; TERMINATING
ACTION

12
13

On February 5, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Scott Johnson’s only federal law claim

14

(under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq.)

15

against Defendant Thomas Roper. See MTD Order, ECF 35. The Court held that the claim was

16

moot because Roper has ceased all business operations and permanently vacated the premises at

17

issue. MTD Order at 1, 4–5. The Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state

18

law claim (under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–53) because Plaintiff

19

still had pending ADA and Unruh Act claims against Defendant Bryant Otter (who has not yet

20

appeared in this case). Id. at 5–6. The Court noted that it was exercising supplemental

21

jurisdiction over the state law claim against Roper “at least until the ADA claim against Otter is

22

resolved, at which point the Court may reconsider whether supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate

23

over the remaining state law claim against Roper.” MTD Order at 6.

24

That same day, the Court issued an order to show cause to Plaintiff “why his ADA claim

25

against Otter should not be dismissed as moot, and in turn why the Court should not decline to

26

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims,” in light of the Court’s

27

holding that the ADA claim was moot against Roper because the business had ceased operations

28

on the premises. Or. to Show Cause at 1, ECF 36. Johnson’s deadline to respond was February

1

19, 2019.1 Johnson did not respond.

2

The Court fully adopts its reasoning from its Order on Defendant Roper’s motion to

3

dismiss and holds that Plaintiff’s ADA claim against Defendant Otter is moot. Roper averred that

4

the public accommodation at the center of this lawsuit (the Relax VIP Spa) terminated its

5

occupancy and permanently vacated the premises in December 2017. Roper Decl. ISO Mot. ¶¶ 2,

6

3, ECF 23-2. He also testified that the spa does not plan to resume operations and that the real

7

property is currently for sale. Id. ¶¶ 3, 5. The case law demonstrates that in scenarios such as this,

8

the ADA claim for prospective injunctive relief is moot. See Kohler v. Southland Foods, Inc., 459

9

F. App’x 617, 618–19 (9th Cir. 2011) (unpublished); see also Johnson v. Lake Tahoe Partners,
No. Civ. S-13-2534-KJM, 2014 WL 2548830, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2014). Thus, as with

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff’s ADA claim against Defendant Roper, the Court holds that Plaintiff’s ADA claim

12

against Defendant Otter is moot, and on that basis dismisses the claim for lack of subject matter

13

jurisdiction.
Having now dismissed each of Plaintiff’s federal law claims, the Court declines to exercise

14
15

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (“The

16

district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim [brought under

17

supplemental jurisdiction] if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has

18

original jurisdiction.”).
Accordingly, the federal claim against Defendant Otter is DISMISSED for lack of subject

19
20

matter jurisdiction, and the state law claim against both Defendants is DISMISSED WITHOUT

21

PREJUDICE to Johnson’s bringing it in state court. The Clerk is instructed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated: February 21, 2019
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

1

The Court set a deadline of Monday, February 18, 2019, which was a national holiday, making
Plaintiff’s deadline the following business day.
2