Background

On July 29, 2022, Plaintiff Raul Uriarte-Limon (“Plaintiff”) filed a document entitled Notice of Indication of Mootness (“Notice”). (Notice, ECF No. 54.) In his Notice, Plaintiff states as follows:

On November 21, 2021, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim. (Dkt. 45.) This limited Plaintiff’s remedies to solely injunctive relief. Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858 (9th Cir. 2002); 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1). However, on July 19, 2022, Defendants have presented evidence that the Pro Star Safety, Inc. has gone out of business, and a new business occupies the premises visited by Plaintiff. Therefore, the barriers complained of no longer exist. Plaintiff must face a “real and immediate threat of repeated injury” to establish standing for injunctive relief. Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 946 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, the removal of the alleged barriers renders Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief moot.

(Id. at 1.1)

1 Pinpoint citations in this Order refer to the page numbers appearing in the ECF-generated headers of the cited documents.

CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes – General Page 1 of 2 Case 5:21-cv-00276-MAA Document 55 Filed 08/02/22 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:254

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 5:21-cv-00276-MAA Date: August 2, 2022 Title: Raul Uriarte-Limon v. United Capital Investments, LLC et al. Discussion

The Court has an independent obligation to consider its own subject-matter jurisdiction. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Federal courts are barred from hearing matters in the absence of a live case or controversy. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2; Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). To meet the case or controversy requirement of Article III, the parties must continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit throughout the proceedings. Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d 477, 479 (9th Cir. 2003). “If an event occurs that prevents the court from granting effective relief, the claim is moot and must be dismissed.” Am. Rivers v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 126 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 1997).

In this case, Plaintiff states that his sole remaining claim for injunctive relief is moot because Defendant Pro Star Safety, Inc. has gone out of business and the barriers alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint no longer exist. (Notice 1.) Accordingly, Plaintiff hereby is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, by no later than September 1, 2022, why this action should not be dismissed as moot. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a notice of dismissal in this action. The Clerk is directed to attach Form CV-09 (Notice of Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a) or (c)) to this Order.

Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to respond to this Order by September 1, 2022 may result in a recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice as moot, and/or for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Attachments: Form CV-09 (Notice of Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a) or (c))

CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes – General Page 2 of 2