Whitaker v. Chan

Background

Brian Whitaker alleged that he could not access the Versailles Hair Salon in March 2021. He sued Helen V. Chan, John Y. Chan, Raymond Young, and Lily Young, who owned the property where the salon operated. His claims arose under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The salon later closed permanently. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the closure eliminated the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction because Whitaker no longer had standing to pursue a live dispute. Whitaker did not dispute that the business had closed and did not submit evidence rebutting the defendants’ evidence about the closure.

ADA Claim

The court concluded that the ADA claims were moot. In the Ninth Circuit, private ADA plaintiffs may obtain only injunctive relief, meaning an order requiring future compliance. A permanent business closure generally eliminates the possibility that the plaintiff will encounter the same access barriers again.

The court rejected Whitaker’s argument that his request for nominal damages kept the ADA claim alive. It explained that the Supreme Court’s decision recognizing nominal damages for a completed legal violation did not apply to the ADA’s statutory remedial scheme. The court also rejected the argument that a new business might occupy the property and present the same barriers. Whitaker offered no evidence that the salon would reopen, and the possibility of a new business moving into the property was too speculative to preserve the ADA claim.

Unruh Act Claim and Supplemental Jurisdiction

The court recognized that the Unruh Act claim could remain live because that statute addresses past harm and provides statutory damages. But the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, which is the federal court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim along with a federal claim.

The court relied on the dismissal of the only claim over which it had original federal jurisdiction and on exceptional circumstances involving the pairing of Unruh Act claims with ADA claims. It reasoned that the litigation had not progressed beyond threshold questions of standing and mootness, that the case was at an early stage, and that concerns about federal-state comity outweighed possible efficiency benefits. The court therefore left the Unruh Act claim for possible refiling in state court.

Disposition

Judge Laurel Beeler granted the motion to dismiss. The complaint was dismissed without leave to amend. The ADA claim was dismissed with prejudice as moot. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, which was dismissed without prejudice to refiling it in state court.