1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 21-cv-05646-TSH

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

9 v.

10 DANIEL H. SMITH, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 In this case, Plaintiff Scott Johnson alleges Defendants Daniel and Wilma Smith have 14 violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and 15 California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53, because they failed to provide 16 wheelchair accessible parking at their business. However, on August 31 Johnson filed a Notice of 17 Indication of Mootness of ADA Claim for Injunctive Relief, stating that Defendants have provided 18 sufficient evidence that “the subject business has undergone full remediation to all barriers listed 19 in Plaintiff’s Complaint. This suggests Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief moot.” ECF No. 35. 20 “Once a defendant has remedied all ADA violations complained of by a plaintiff, the 21 plaintiff’s claims become moot and he or she loses standing.” Whitaker v. Chanel, Inc., 2022 WL 22 1122645, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2022) (quoting Johnson v. Case Ventures, LLC, 2020 WL 23 4747908, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2020)); see also Johnson v. 1082 El Camino Real, LP, 2018 24 WL 1091267, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2018) (finding an ADA claim moot where “the undisputed 25 evidence show[ed] that Defendants ha[d] corrected the sole alleged access barrier alleged in the 26 complaint”). In that situation, the Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over the ADA 27 claim. Chanel, 2022 WL 1122645, at *5. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Johnson to show 1 Further, as a state law claim, Johnson’s Unruh Act claim is before the Court only pursuant 2 || to its supplemental jurisdiction. See Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1209-10 (9th Cir. 2021); 28 3 || U.S.C. § 1367(a). Accordingly, the Court FURTHER ORDERS Johnson to show cause why the 4 || Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim. 5 Johnson shall file a response to this order by September 14, 2022. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: August 31, 2022 9 TAA. |

THOMAS S. HIXSON

10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28