1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 21-cv-07590-AGT 6 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

7 v. DISMISS 8 ROMOLO CAPPELLO, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 12 9 Defendants. 10 Scott Johnson sued the owners of Fernando’s Mexican Restaurant under the Americans 11 || with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Act, alleging that he encountered accessibility 12 || barriers when he visited their restaurant. In a pending Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of E 13 || subject matter jurisdiction, defendants argue that (1) Johnson’s ADA claim should be dismissed as 14 || moot because the alleged barriers have been removed, and (11) the Court should decline to exercise 3 15 || supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim. Dkt. 12. Johnson did not file an opposition 2 16 to defendants’ motion. Instead, he filed a “Notice of Indication of Mootness of ADA Claim for i 17 || Injunctive Relief,” in which he agrees that his ADA claim is moot because “the subject business Z 18 || has undergone full remediation to all barriers listed in [his] Complaint.” Dkt. 14. Johnson did not 19 || respond to, much less oppose, defendants’ arguments supporting dismissal of his Unruh Act claim. 20 Because Johnson agrees that defendants have remedied the alleged ADA violations, his 21 |} ADA claim is dismissed as moot. His Unruh Act claim is also dismissed because the Court 22 || declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See Whitaker v. Alice & Olivia California 23 || Holdings LLC, 2022 WL 1135088, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2022); see also Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 24 || F.Ath 1202, 1211-14 (9th Cir. 2021). 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: September 3, 2022 27

AL TSE

28 United States Magistrate Judge