Garcia v. C.N. Khov, Inc
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:22-cv-00131
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Garcia v. C.N. Khov, Inc., Judge Rogers dismissed the ADA claim as moot and ordered a response before deciding whether to dismiss the Unruh Act claim.
Orlando Garcia’s ADA claim was dismissed as moot. His remaining Unruh Act claim was subject to a required written response and possible dismissal if he did not respond by the stated deadline.
What happened
Orlando Garcia told the court that his request for an order requiring changes under the Americans with Disabilities Act had become moot. Because the court said that this is the only remedy available under that law, it dismissed his entire ADA claim.
Garcia’s remaining claim arises under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court said federal courts generally decline to keep such claims after dismissing a related ADA claim and that exceptional circumstances may support dismissal when a high-frequency litigant brings both claims in federal court.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Garcia to explain in writing by August 26, 2022, why keeping the Unruh Act claim in federal court would serve judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts. The order says the claim will be dismissed if he does not respond on time.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. C.N. Khov, Inc · No. 4:22-cv-00131
- Yvonne Rogers
- Aug. 19, 2022
Background
Orlando Garcia filed claims against C.N. Khov, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Garcia filed a notice stating that his ADA claim for injunctive relief had become moot.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that injunctive relief is the only remedy available under the ADA in this case. It therefore concluded that Garcia’s entire ADA claim was moot and dismissed that claim.
The court stated that the Unruh Act claim was the only claim remaining. It said courts decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear a related state-law claim after the federal claim is gone—over Unruh Act claims after dismissal of a parallel ADA claim. The court also stated that Garcia’s status as a “high-frequency” litigant asserting an Unruh Act claim with an ADA claim in federal court constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying dismissal.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause rather than immediately dismissing the Unruh Act claim. It ordered Garcia to respond in writing by August 26, 2022, explaining how keeping the case in federal court would further judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. The order states that failure to respond on time will result in dismissal of the Unruh Act claim. The opinion does not state whether Garcia filed a response or whether that claim was later dismissed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.