Langer v. Russell Motorsports, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 CHRIS LANGER, No. 2:21-cv-01763 WBS AC 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 15 RUSSELL MOTORSPORTS, INC., a California Corporation, 16 Defendant. 17 18 ----oo0oo---- 19 Plaintiff Chris Langer brought this action against 20 Russel Motorsports, Inc. for alleged violation of the Americans 21 with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq., and 22 violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. 23 (First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) (Docket No. 10).) Defendant now moves 24 to dismiss plaintiff’s FAC in its entirety under Federal Rules of 25 Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Docket No. 14.)1 26 27 1 Defendant submitted a request for judicial notice of documents including screenshots of various webpages, business 28 information from the California Secretary of State, and physical 1 I. Factual Background 2 Plaintiff is “profoundly hard of hearing” and relies on 3 closed captioning to understand audio in video content. (FAC at 4 ¶ 1.) Defendant owns and operates the Placerville Speedway, a 5 dirt track auto racing facility in El Dorado County. (Id. at ¶¶ 6 2-3.) In connection with its brick-and-mortar business, 7 defendant operates a website at 8 https://www.placervillespeedway.com. (Id. at ¶ 4-5.) 9 In August 2021, plaintiff alleges he visited 10 defendant’s website “to look for information [about] whether the 11 Speedway had opened to the public.” (Id. at ¶ 16.) Plaintiff 12 alleges that when attempting to view two videos, titled “March 13 27, 2021 Racing Highlights” and “Placerville Commercial,” he 14 discovered they lacked closed captioning, rendering him unable to 15 fully understand their content. (Id. at ¶¶ 16-17.) The parties 16 agree that the videos were uploaded to YouTube by third parties 17 and defendant then embedded the videos within its website. (Id. 18 at ¶ 32; Mem. ISO of Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot. to Dismiss”) at 4 19 (Docket No. 14-1); Opp’n at 5-6 (Docket No. 15).) 20 II. Mootness of ADA Claim 21 Injunctive relief is the only form of relief available 22 in a private action for violation of the ADA’s Title III, and 23 therefore a “defendant’s voluntary removal of alleged barriers 24 prior to trial can have the effect of mooting a plaintiff’s ADA 25 claim.” Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 905 (9th 26 27 addresses. (Docket No. 14-2.) The court does not rely on any of the items in the request in deciding defendant’s motion, and 28 therefore the request is DENIED AS MOOT. 1 Cir. 2011). Here, it is undisputed that either the videos have 2 been removed from the website or closed captioning has been added 3 to them.2 (Mot. to Dismiss at 15; Decl. of Kami Arnold (“Arnold 4 Decl.”) at ¶ 15 (Docket No. 14-3); (Docket No. 6).) 5 The FAC includes no allegations to sufficiently support 6 the inference that the ADA violation could “reasonably be 7 expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. 8 Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 190 (2000). To the contrary, 9 Kami Arnold, the Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of 10 defendant, has submitted a declaration stating that defendant 11 contacted the hosts of the YouTube videos embedded into 12 defendant’s website to confirm that the closed captioning will 13 remain intact. (Arnold Decl. at ¶ 16.) Arnold also states that 14 defendant “has no intention to remove the captioning” from the 15 specified videos or any other videos on its website. (Id.)3 16 2 The FAC alleges that defendant “removed the above inaccessible videos” from its website and plaintiff states the 17 same in his opposition to defendant’s motion. (FAC ¶ 30; Opp’n 18 at 15.) However, in an email to defendant’s counsel, plaintiff’s counsel states that defendant has enabled closed captioning on 19 the videos, and does not mention anything about removal of the videos. (Decl. of Lucas M. Sprenkel, Ex. B (Docket No. 14-4) 20 (“My client appreciates that the videos you linked do now offer closed captioning.”) Regardless of whether the videos were 21 modified to include closed captioning or completely removed, the 22 parties agree that the alleged ADA violation no longer exists on defendant’s website. 23 3 The court notes that in Langer v. Zoological Society of 24 San Diego, No. 20-cv-2227-AJB-BGS, 2021 WL 254203, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2021), a nearly identical case, plaintiff filed a 25 non-opposition to a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction in which the defendant argued the ADA claim 26 was moot because closed captioning was added to the subject 27 videos. Plaintiff provides no explanation for his non-opposition in that case and his opposition here when the facts are 28 substantially similar. 1 Accordingly, plaintiff’s ADA claim will be dismissed. 2 III. Unruh Civil Rights Act Claim 3 When the federal claims upon which a federal court’s 4 subject-matter jurisdiction is predicated are dismissed before 5 trial, the court has discretion as to whether it will continue to 6 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any pendant state law 7 claims. Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 521 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th 8 Cir. 2008) (“The decision whether to continue to exercise 9 supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal 10 claims have been dismissed lies within the district court’s 11 discretion.”). 12 In determining how to exercise this discretion, the 13 court should consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, 14 and comity. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 15 (1988). The Supreme Court has observed that “in the usual case 16 in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the 17 balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to exercise 18 jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Id. at 350 19 n.7. 20 There is no evidence to suggest that this case is 21 anything but the “usual” case referenced in Carnegie-Mellon 22 Univ., 484 U.S. 343. This litigation is at an early stage. No 23 trial date has been set and no dispositive motions have been 24 noticed or adjudicated. Therefore, there is no judicial economy 25 to be gained by exercising continued jurisdiction over 26 plaintiff’s state law claim. The state court is equally 27 competent to hear the remaining state law claim and may have a 28 better understanding of the relevant state law. Both the state eee eee IEE I SN I OI IS IID NE 1 and federal fora are equally convenient for the parties, and 2 there is no reason to doubt that the state court will provide an 3 equally fair adjudication of the plaintiff’s claim. 4 Accordingly, the court declines to exercise 5 supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Unruh Civil Rights Act 6 | claim and will grant defendant’s motion to dismiss it without 7 | prejudice to refiling in state court. 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to 9 dismiss (Docket No. 14) be, and the same hereby, is GRANTED, and 10 this action is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to plaintiff's 11 right to refile his remaining state law claim in state court. 12] Dated: April 12, 2022 eh tle HK Dd. bE 13 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28