Whitaker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 BRIAN WHITAKER, Case No. 21-cv-01308-AGT

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

v. RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS

BOUNSOM SIVONGSA, Re: Dkt. No. 26 Defendant.

Defendant states that he has “no intention” of “offering outdoor dining” again at his San Francisco-based coffee shop, “including if and when any future State or local health orders restrict indoor dining.” Dkt. 28, Sivongsa Decl. ¶ 5. With this new avowal, defendant insists that plaintiff’s ADA claim is moot. “Disclaim[ing] any intention to revive” a challenged practice “does not suffice to make a case moot.” United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953). This is especially so when, as here, no permanent structural changes have been made, and the challenged practice could easily be resumed by moving some tables and chairs outside. See Sullivan v. Storer Transit Sys., 2020 WL 3254400, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2020) (Spero, C.M.J.) (“In contrast to…