Warner v. Delano

Background

Wade Warner sued Dennis Jay Delano, alleging 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 because of concerns about COVID-19. The court had previously granted Delano’s motion to dismiss, after which Warner filed an amended complaint. Delano again moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

While reviewing that motion, the court ordered the parties to address whether it still had subject-matter jurisdiction—the authority to hear the case—over the ADA claim after the store’s mask requirement had been lifted, and whether it should continue hearing the Unruh Act claim if the ADA claim could not proceed.

Court’s Analysis

Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to live cases or controversies. A claim becomes moot when the issues are no longer live or the parties no longer have a legally recognizable interest in the result. The court explained that a private plaintiff generally may seek only injunctive relief under the ADA, such as removal of an access barrier. Removing the alleged barrier before trial can therefore make an ADA claim moot.

California had ended its mask mandate and the COVID-19 state of emergency on which Delano had relied when enforcing the store’s mask requirement. Delano also confirmed that he had told Fairfax Market management on February 15, 2022, that the store would lift its face-covering requirement on February 16, 2022, and remove the signs requiring masks. Warner did not appear to dispute that lifting the requirement eliminated federal jurisdiction over the ADA claim.

The court also considered whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear a related state-law claim alongside a federal claim. Because the court had dismissed the only claim over which it had original federal jurisdiction, it concluded that the usual factors—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts—favored declining jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

Disposition

The court dismissed the ADA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It dismissed the Unruh Act claim without prejudice to Warner pursuing that claim in state court. The clerk was directed to close the case. The order was issued by United States District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.