Garcia v. H & D Prop, LLC
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-04213
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Garcia v. H & D Prop, Judge Davila dismissed Garcia’s ADA claim as moot and dismissed his Unruh Act claim without prejudice.
Garcia’s ADA claim was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and his Unruh Act claim was dismissed without prejudice. The action was closed as to H & D Prop, LLC and Diep K. Ngo.
What happened
Garcia sued H & D Prop, LLC and Diep K. Ngo, alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The defendants sold the property where the business operated, and the business was expected to close permanently after escrow closed.
At a hearing, Garcia agreed that his ADA claim would become moot when those events occurred. His Unruh Act claim was based only on the alleged ADA violation, and he did not argue that the federal court should keep hearing that state-law claim.
Judge Davila ruled that the ADA claim was moot and dismissed it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and dismissed that claim without prejudice; the clerk was ordered to close the file.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. H & D Prop, LLC · No. 5:21-cv-04213
- Edward Davila
- Mar. 24, 2022
Background
Orlando Garcia sued H & D Prop, LLC and Diep K. Ngo. He asserted a claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The parties filed a stipulation to skip a required joint site inspection because H & D had sold the real property where Ngo operated the business at issue, and Ngo’s business would permanently close once escrow closed. At the March 24, 2022 hearing, the defendants represented that escrow was scheduled to close on April 1, 2022, after which the building would be redeveloped by its new owner. Garcia did not dispute those facts and acknowledged that his ADA claim would be moot as of that date.
Court’s analysis
A claim is moot when later events make it clear that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur and have completely eliminated the effects of the alleged violation. The court concluded that the circumstances made Garcia’s ADA claim moot. Because the Unruh Act claim was based solely on the alleged ADA violation, and Garcia did not argue that the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over that state-law claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
Disposition
Judge Edward J. Davila dismissed the ADA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court dismissed the Unruh Act claim without prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the file.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.