Whitaker v. Jack Sen Benevolent Association
- Joseph Spero
- 3:21-cv-03469
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Whitaker v. Jack Sen Benevolent Association, Judge Spero dismissed the moot ADA claim without prejudice and dismissed the Unruh Act claim without prejudice.
Brian Whitaker’s federal ADA claim and California Unruh Act claim were dismissed without prejudice; the case was closed.
What happened
In Brian Whitaker v. Jack Sen Benevolent Association, Whitaker told the court that the barriers described in his complaint had been removed and the property was accessible to wheelchair users. He said his request for an order requiring access improvements was therefore moot, meaning no live dispute remained about that request.
Whitaker did not object to dismissal of his Americans with Disabilities Act claim as moot or to the court declining to hear his California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim. The court agreed to both requests.
Judge Joseph C. Spero dismissed the ADA claim without prejudice because it was moot, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, and dismissed that claim without prejudice. The clerk was instructed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Jack Sen Benevolent Association · No. 3:21-cv-03469
- Joseph Spero
- Oct. 3, 2022
Background
Brian Whitaker notified the court that the barriers alleged in his complaint had been removed and that the property had been fully remediated and made accessible for people with disabilities, specifically wheelchair users. He stated that his claim for injunctive relief had therefore become moot. Mootness means that the federal court no longer has a live dispute to decide concerning the requested relief.
In response to the court’s order to explain why the case should not be dismissed, Whitaker said he did not object to dismissal of his claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on mootness grounds. He also did not object to the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim, which the order identified as the only remaining claim.
Ruling
The court dismissed the ADA claim without prejudice on the basis that it was moot. The court explained that a moot case no longer presents a live case or controversy within the federal court’s constitutional jurisdiction. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—authority to hear a related state-law claim—over the Unruh Act claim and dismissed that claim without prejudice as well. The clerk was instructed to close the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.