Warner v. Delano
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-05666
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Warner v. Delano, Judge Gilliam ordered briefing on whether COVID-19 changes mooted Warner’s ADA claim and affected supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim.
Wade Warner and Dennis Jay Delano; the order addressed whether the federal court could continue hearing Warner’s ADA and related Unruh Act claims.
What happened
In Warner v. Delano, Wade Warner alleges that Dennis Jay Delano violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act by preventing him from shopping at Fairfax Market without a mask in April 2021.
The court questioned whether California’s end of its mask mandate and COVID-19 state of emergency made Warner’s request for an ADA injunction no longer a live dispute. It ordered Warner to explain why the court still had authority to hear the ADA claim and, if not, why it should continue hearing the state-law claim. The court did not decide those questions or Delano’s pending motion to dismiss.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered Warner to respond by June 20, 2023, and Delano to respond by June 27, 2023. He vacated the scheduled motion-to-dismiss hearing and initial case-management conference, leaving open the possibility of rescheduling them after the jurisdiction issue was resolved.
The detailed version
- Warner v. Delano · No. 4:21-cv-05666
- Haywood Gilliam
- June 6, 2023
Background
Wade Warner sued Dennis Jay Delano on July 23, 2021. The court previously granted Delano’s motion to dismiss, after which Warner filed an amended complaint. Warner alleges that Delano violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act by denying Warner the ability to shop at Fairfax Market without a mask in April 2021, based on concerns about COVID-19. Delano moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety.
Jurisdictional Concern
While reviewing Delano’s motion, the court identified a question about subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the dispute. Federal courts may decide only live cases or controversies. The court explained that a private plaintiff generally may seek an ADA injunction requiring removal of an access barrier, and that removing the barrier before trial can make the ADA claim moot, meaning there is no longer a live dispute for the court to resolve.
The court noted that California had ended its mask mandate and the COVID-19 state of emergency that Delano relied on when enforcing a mask mandate at the store. It therefore directed Warner to show cause—explain why—the court retained subject-matter jurisdiction over the ADA claim. The court also directed Warner to explain why, if the ADA claim was no longer within federal jurisdiction, the court should still exercise supplemental jurisdiction, or authority to hear a related state-law claim, over the Unruh Act claim.
Order
The court directed Warner to file a response by June 20, 2023. It directed Delano to respond by June 27, 2023, including whether Fairfax Market still required patrons to wear masks or when it ended those procedures. The court said the matter would be treated as submitted after the briefing unless a hearing became necessary.
The court vacated the June 15, 2023 hearing on Delano’s motion to dismiss and the initial case-management conference. It stated that those proceedings could be reset after the jurisdictional question was resolved. The order did not decide whether the ADA claim was moot, whether supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised, or whether Delano’s motion to dismiss should be granted or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.