Whitaker v. TJ Technology LLC
- William Orrick
- 3:21-cv-09655
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Whitaker v. TJ Technology, Judge Orrick dismissed the ADA claim with prejudice and the Unruh Act claim without prejudice to refiling in state court.
Brian Whitaker’s federal ADA claim was dismissed with prejudice, and his California Unruh Act claim was dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. TJ Technology LLC was the defendant.
What happened
In Whitaker v. TJ Technology LLC, Brian Whitaker alleged that TJ Technology violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act by failing to provide a wheelchair-accessible sales counter at a cell phone repair shop.
Whitaker conceded that his request for an injunction under the Americans with Disabilities Act was no longer a live issue. The court dismissed that claim with prejudice. The court then declined to keep the remaining Unruh Act claim because it had dismissed the only federal claim giving it jurisdiction over the case.
Judge Orrick dismissed the case, dismissing the Unruh Act claim without prejudice to refiling in state court.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. TJ Technology LLC · No. 3:21-cv-09655
- William Orrick
- July 22, 2022
Background
Brian Whitaker filed the case in December 2021 against TJ Technology LLC. He alleged that TJ Technology violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act by failing to provide a wheelchair-accessible sales counter at a cell phone repair shop.
ADA Claim
Whitaker conceded that his request for injunctive relief under the ADA was moot, meaning the requested court order was no longer a live issue. The opinion states that injunctive relief was the only remedy available to him for the ADA claim. The court therefore dismissed the ADA claim with prejudice.
Unruh Act Claim and Jurisdiction
The court stated that the ADA claim was the only source of subject-matter jurisdiction. It explained that both parties were citizens of California and that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000, so diversity jurisdiction did not apply. After dismissing the only federal claim, the court had only the state-law Unruh Act claim remaining.
The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, which is the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims after federal claims are dismissed. The Unruh Act claim was dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.
Disposition
The case was dismissed. The ADA claim was dismissed with prejudice, and the Unruh Act claim was dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. Judge William H. Orrick entered the order on July 22, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.