Opinion
21-CV-09655-WHO
07-22-2022
BRIAN WHITAKER, Plaintiff, v. TJ TECHNOLOGY LLC, Defendant.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE RE: DKT. NO. 38
William H. Orrick, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Brian Whitaker filed this suit in December 2021, alleging that defendant TJ Technology LLC (“TJ Technology”) violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act by not providing a wheelchair-accessible sales counter at a cell phone repair shop. See Dkt. No. 1. Whitaker now concedes that his claim for injunctive relief under the ADA, the only remedy available to him for that claim, is moot. See Dkt. No. 38; see also Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211 (9th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, the ADA claim is DISMISSED with prejudice.
The ADA claim is the only source of subject-matter jurisdiction in this case, as the parties are both citizens of California and the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Having dismissed Whitaker's sole federal law claim, the only remaining claim is under the Unruh Act. Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, and courts in this district have declined to exercise it after dismissing the parallel ADA claims. See Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Techbusiness Res., LLC, No. 20-CV-06048-BLF, 2020 WL 7013596, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2020) (citing cases). Because I have dismissed all claims over which I have original jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Unruh Act claim is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in state court.
For these reasons, the case is DISMISSED. The ADA claim is dismissed with prejudice. The Unruh Act claim is dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.