1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 21-cv-04447-TSH

7 Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

8 v.

9 BW RRI II LLC, 10 Defendant.

11 12 On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff Scott Johnson filed a Notice of Indication of Mootness of 13 ADA Claim for Injunctive Relief. ECF No. 30. Johnson states as follows:

14 As of October 3, 2022, Defendant has represented that the subject business has been closed and is being sold. This suggest that 15 Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is moot. Plaintiff acknowledges that with Defendant’s indication that the subject business closed, he 16 has no objection to the dismissal of his ADA claim.

17 Further, should this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s sole federal question claim, Plaintiff has no objection to this Court declining to exercise 18 supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim so that he can refile that action in state court. 19 20 Under the ADA, plaintiffs may only seek injunctive relief and attorney’s fees. See 42 21 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1); Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 401-02 (1968). Thus, if 22 a claim for injunctive relief is moot, the plaintiff loses standing, which means the Court no longer 23 has subject-matter jurisdiction over the ADA claim. Johnson v. Case Ventures, LLC, 2020 WL 24 4747908, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2020) (citing Grove v. De La Cruz, 407 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 25 1130-31 (C.D. Cal. 2005)). Accordingly, Johnson’s ADA claim is DISMISSED WITH 26 PREJUDICE.1 27 1 As to Johnson’s state law Unruh Act claim, the Court “may decline to exercise 2 supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 3 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have “often repeated,” “in the 4 usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors will 5 point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Acri v. 6 Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997), supplemented by 121 F.3d 714 (9th Cir. 7 1997) (alterations omitted) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 8 (1988)). Accordingly, Whitaker’s Unruh Act claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to 9 || refiling in state court. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: October 4, 2022 13 AL. Lj 4 THOMAS S. HIXSON United States Magistrate Judge

2 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28