Santos, Jr. v. Winreal Operating Co., L.P. et al

Filing 38

ORDER denying 31 Motion for Summary Judgment by Winreal Operating Co., L.P., Winreal, Inc.; Denying 32 Motion for Summary Judgment by Esteban Santos, Jr. The court denies the motions for summary judgment on the ADA claim asmoot, and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the file. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 6/4/2018. (gac)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ESTABAN SANTOS, JR.,

CASE NO. 17cv0854 JM(AGS)

11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

v.

WINREAL OPERATING CO., L.P;
and WINREAL, INC.,

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE
ADA CLAIM AS MOOT;
DECLINING TO EXERCISE
JURISDICTION OVER STATE LAW
CLAIM

Defendants.
Plaintiff Estaban Santos, Jr. moves for summary judgment on all claims alleged

17 in his architectural barriers disability discrimination complaint. Defendants Winreal
18 Operating Co., L.P. and Winreal, Inc. (collectively “Winreal”) cross-move for summary
19 judgment. All motions are opposed. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the court finds
20 the matters presented appropriate for resolution without oral argument. For the reasons
21 set forth below, the court denies the motions for summary judgment on the Americans
22 with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claim as moot, declines to exercise jurisdiction over the
23 Unruh Act claim, and instructs the Clerk of Court to dismiss the action without
24 prejudice and to close the file.
25
26

BACKGROUND
Filed on February 2, 2018, the federal question First Amended Complaint

27 (“FAC”) alleges two causes of action: violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.,
28 and violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. §51-53. Plaintiff seeks an
-1-

17cv0854

1 injunction to compel Winreal to comply with the ADA, statutory damages pursuant to
2 the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees. Plaintiff’s claims arise from architectural barriers
3 he encountered when he attempted to visit a MetroPCS store in a shopping center
4 owned by Winreal in El Centro, California. (FAC ¶¶8-11).
5

Plaintiff alleges that he encountered architectural barriers with respect to

6 disability parking and the entrance door to the business. More specifically, Plaintiff
7 alleges that the accessible parking space is non-compliant with the ADA because
8 (1) the required “Minimum Fine $250 signage” is missing; (2) the tow-away sign is
9 missing; (3) the sign in front of accessible parking space is too low; (4) there is no
10 accessible parking space/access aisle; and (5) the slopes within previously designated
11 accessible parking space and access aisle are too steep. With respect to the entrance
12 door, Plaintiff alleges that the (1) entrance door is too narrow; (2) entrance door
13 requires too much force to open; and (3) entry doors have non-compliant door handles.
14 (FAC ¶¶3, 16, 17, 22-25, 29-31).
15

At the time of filing the cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties

16 disputed whether Winreal had remedied the above identified architectural barriers. By
17 the time of filing the reply briefs, each party represents that all deficiencies have been
18 remedied.
19

DISCUSSION

20 The ADA Claim
21

In light of the parties’ representation that the alleged architectural barriers have

22 been remedied and presently meet current accessibility standards, the court dismisses
23 this claim with prejudice as moot. See United States v. Geophysical Corp. of Alaska,
24 732 F.2d 693, 698 (9th Cir. 1984).
25 Supplemental Jurisdiction, The Unruh Act Claim
26

This court is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) to exercise supplemental

27 jurisdiction over state law claims whenever the relationship between the federal and
28 state claims is such that they “form part of the same case or controversy under Article
-2-

17cv0854

1 III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). However, 28 U.S.C.
2 §1367(c) provides:
3

(c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over a claim under subsection (a) if - -

4

(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it
has original jurisdiction.

5

6 28 U.S.C. §1367(c). As noted by the Supreme Court, supplemental “jurisdiction is a
7 doctrine of discretion.” City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S.
8 156, 172 (1997).
9

Here, the court has dismissed the federal ADA claim, the basis for original

10 jurisdiction in federal court. Consequently, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction
11 over the state law Unruh Act claim. See San Pedrio Hotel Co., Inc. v. City of Los
12 Angeles, 159 F.3d 470. 478 (9th Cir. 1988) (district court not required to provide
13 explanation when declining jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3)).
14

In sum, the court denies the motion for summary judgment on the ADA claim as

15 moot, and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.
16 The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the file.
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 DATED: June 4, 2018
19

Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller
United States District Judge

20
21

cc:

All parties

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

17cv0854