Whitaker v. Brender Commercial Land Holding LLC
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-01125
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Whitaker v. Brender, Judge Freeman dismissed the Unruh Act claim without prejudice and terminated the motion to dismiss as moot.
Brian Whitaker’s remaining Unruh Act claim was dismissed without prejudice, allowing him to refile it in state court. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was terminated as moot, and no claims remained in the federal case.
What happened
In Whitaker v. Brender Commercial Land Holding LLC, Brian Whitaker opposed dismissal of his remaining Unruh Act claim. He argued that the federal court should keep the claim because it was closely connected to his Americans with Disabilities Act claim.
The court declined to keep the Unruh Act claim because it had already dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act claim, and Whitaker chose not to file it again. The court dismissed the Unruh Act claim without prejudice to refiling in state court.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman terminated the defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot because no claims remained and directed the clerk to close the file.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Brender Commercial Land Holding LLC · No. 5:21-cv-01125
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 26, 2021
Background
The remaining claim was Brian Whitaker’s claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court had previously dismissed Whitaker’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim with leave to amend, but Whitaker did not replead that claim in his Second Amended Complaint.
The court had ordered Whitaker to explain why the Unruh Act claim should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Whitaker opposed dismissal, arguing that the Unruh Act claim was closely connected to the Americans with Disabilities Act claim and that separating the claims would make little sense.
Reasoning
The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning the federal court chose not to retain a related state-law claim after the federal claim over which it had original jurisdiction was dismissed. The court reasoned that there was no efficiency benefit to litigating the Unruh Act claim in federal court because the Americans with Disabilities Act claim was no longer pending. The court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and stated that the Unruh Act claim could be refilled in state court.
Disposition
The court DISMISSED the Unruh Act claim WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling in state court. Because no claims remained, the court TERMINATED AS MOOT the defendants’ motion to dismiss and directed the clerk to close the file.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.