Salinas v. Grgich

Background

Gilbert Salinas, an individual with disabilities who uses a wheelchair, sued Natalia Foucault-Grgich over alleged accessibility barriers at her store, Silk & Stone. Salinas alleged that he encountered a path of travel inside the store that narrowed to less than 36 inches. He brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Foucault-Grgich moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows a court to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. She argued that Salinas’s ADA claims were moot because the alleged barriers no longer existed and that the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claims.

A Certified Access Specialist inspected the store and prepared a report. The report stated that the store was in a historical building, that a permanent or portable entrance ramp was not physically possible, and that the store had provided sidewalk assistance and installed a sign with a buzzer. It also described changes to the steps and door handle. Salinas conceded that no barriers remained at the store.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the ADA claims were moot. A claim is moot when the dispute is no longer live or the parties no longer have a legally recognized interest in the outcome. The court explained that a private plaintiff may seek only injunctive relief under the ADA in this type of case, and the removal of the alleged barriers can eliminate the need for that relief. Because Salinas did not dispute that the ADA claims were moot, the court granted the motion to dismiss those claims.

The court then considered whether to keep the Unruh Act claim under supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear a related state-law claim alongside a federal claim. The court noted that it retained discretion to decline that jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. It relied on Ninth Circuit authority concerning federal-state comity, California’s procedural reforms for ADA-based Unruh Act cases, and the early stage of the litigation. The court also found that dismissing the state-law claims would have little effect on judicial economy because the case had not reached an initial case-management conference and the parties had engaged in little motion practice.

Disposition

The court granted Foucault-Grgich’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Salinas’s ADA claims were dismissed as moot. His Unruh Act claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. The Clerk was directed to close the case.

Judge

The opinion was signed by Judge Donna Ryu.