1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 21-cv-08410-SVK

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING

9 v. UNRUH ACT CLAIM WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

10 GOODWILL OF SILICON VALLEY,

11 Defendant.

12 Plaintiff’s Complaint in this case contains two causes of action: (1) violation of the 13 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”); and (2) violation of 14 the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53 (“Unruh Act”). Dkt. 1. Plaintiff 15 asserts that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental 16 jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. 17 On June 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Indication of Mootness of ADA Claim for 18 Injunctive Relief,” which stated that Defendant had provided sufficient evidence that it had 19 remediated all alleged barriers to access at the business that is the subject of this lawsuit. Dkt. 12. According to Plaintiff, “[t]his suggests Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief [is] moot.” Id. 20 The Court ordered the Parties to file a joint status report by July 13, 2022 with a joint 21 proposed schedule for resolving the remaining issues in the case. Dkt. 13. The Parties timely 22 filed a joint status report in which Defendant requests that the Court dismiss the remaining Unruh 23 Act claims on its own motion or, in the alternative, set a deadline for Defendant to file a motion to 24 dismiss. Id. Plaintiff takes the position that the Court continue to exercise supplemental 25 jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Id. 26 Under the circumstances of this case, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the Unruh 27 1 indicated that his sole federal law claim is moot, and therefore the only remaining claim is 2 Plaintiffs claim under California’s Unruh Act. See Dkt. 14. As a state law claim, that claim is 3 || before the Court only pursuant to the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction.” See Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 4 || F.4th 1202, 1209-10 (9th Cir. 2021); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Courts in this District have 5 declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims, regardless of the status of 6 || their parallel ADA claim, because “the strong comity concerns identified by the Ninth Circuit in 7 || Arroyo outweigh any countervailing considerations of economy and efficiency that might be 8 || adversely affected by requiring [the plaintiff] to refile his Unruh Act in state court” and because 9 || allowing an Unruh Act to proceed in district court “would countenance a wholesale evasion of ... 10 || critical limitations on damages relief” that the California legislature has imposed for claims under 11 || the Unruh Act. Garcia v. Maciel, No. 21-cv-03743-JCS, 2022 WL 395316, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12 || 9, 2022) (citing Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1213). 5 13 The Court similarly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act S 14 claim in this case, where the ADA claim is moot, because it would not further the interest of 3 15 “economy, convenience, fairness and comity.” Garcia, 2022 WL 395316, at *5; see also 28 16 || U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 5 17 over a claim if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). 5 1g || Accordingly, the Unruh Act claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of 19 || Court is directed to close the file in this case. 20 SO ORDERED. Dated: August 3, 2022 22 03 Sees afl

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28