Whitaker v. Uma & Tej Inc.
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-06673
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Whitaker v. Uma & Tej, Inc., Judge Rogers conditionally dismissed the ADA case with prejudice after settlement, allowing reopening within 90 days.
Brian Whitaker and Uma & Tej, Inc.; the case was conditionally dismissed with prejudice after settlement, subject to possible reopening within 90 days, and the plaintiff faced orders to explain possible prosecution failures, a potential $250 sanction, and the federal court’s jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.
What happened
In Whitaker v. Uma & Tej, Inc., Brian Whitaker sued Uma & Tej, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act and also asserted a California Unruh Act claim. The opinion says the parties agreed to settle the matter.
The court’s order conditionally dismissed the case with prejudice and vacated all hearings and deadlines. It allowed either party to ask to reopen the case within 90 days, with notice to the other parties. The order also addressed compliance with the court’s procedures for ADA cases and directed the plaintiff to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, why a $250 sanction should not be imposed, and why the court should continue exercising jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued the order on June 29, 2022. The order states that failing to respond to the orders to show cause could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute, a $250 sanction, and dismissal of the Unruh Act claim without prejudice to refiling it in state court.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Uma & Tej Inc. · No. 4:21-cv-06673
- Yvonne Rogers
- June 29, 2022
Background
Brian Whitaker brought claims against Uma & Tej, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The order also refers to a California Unruh Act claim. The court notes that its General Order 56 establishes procedures for ADA claims and states that plaintiff’s counsel was expected to comply with that order and the court’s standing order.
Rulings
The court states that the parties agreed to settle. Based on that settlement, it conditionally dismissed the matter with prejudice and vacated all hearings and deadlines. The order provides that, within 90 days of the order, any party may certify to the court—with proper notice to the other parties—that the case should be reopened. If that occurs, the order will be vacated and the case restored to the calendar for further proceedings.
The order also directs the plaintiff to show cause in writing why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute based on alleged failure to comply with General Order 56 deadlines. It separately directs the plaintiff to show cause why a $250 sanction should not be assessed for failure to comply with General Order 56 and/or another court order. The order states that failure to provide a timely written response could result in dismissal.
Finally, the court directs the plaintiff to show cause why it should continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s discretionary authority to hear a related state-law claim. The order states that failure to respond would result in dismissal of the Unruh Act claim without prejudice to refiling it in state court.
Judge
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued the conditional dismissal order on June 29, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.