Love v. Shops at Tanforan Associates, LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAMUEL LOVE, 7 Case No. 19-cv-06787-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 9 LACK OF JURISDICTION AND SHOPS AT TANFORAN ASSOCIATES, VACATING MARCH 6, 2020 MOTION 10 LLC, et al., HEARING 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 38 12 13 Plaintiff Samuel Love asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 14 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act based on Defendants’ failure 15 to provide accessible sales counters at Regis Salon, in San Bruno California. Presently before the 16 Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”). In the Motion, Defendants assert that this 17 case is moot because the company that owned Regis Salon has ceased operations and the salon 18 closed permanently on January 2, 2020. Therefore, they assert, there is no effective relief the 19 Court could award Plaintiff in this action because injunctive relief is the only form or relief 20 available under the ADA. Defendants further assert that the Court should decline to exercise 21 supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim and instead dismiss this 22 action. 23 Plaintiff does not dispute that the ADA claim is moot, see Opposition at 1, but asks the 24 Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim. Courts have discretion to 25 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims have been 26 dismissed if they find that doing so is in the interest of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, 27 and comity. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). Given that this case is in 1 (‘When the balance of these factors indicates that a case properly belongs in state court, as when 2 || the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims 3 remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without 4 || prejudice.”). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion and dismisses this case without 5 || prejudice. The Motion hearing set for March 6, 2020 is vacated.' 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: February 18, 2020 J PH C. SPERO 9 ief Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 US.C. § 636(c).