1

2

3

4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 CHRIS LANGER, an individual, Case No.: 20-cv-2227-AJB-BGS

11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S v. 12 MOTION TO DISMISS

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 13 ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF SAN 14 DIEGO, dba SAN DIEGO ZOO (Doc. No. 10) GLOBAL, a Domestic Non-Profit, and 15 Does 1-10, 16 Defendant.

17 18 Before the Court is Defendant, Zoological Society of San Diego’s (“Defendant”) 19 motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. No. 10.) Plaintiff alleges two causes of 20 action: (1) a violation of the Americans Disability Act of 1900 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. 21 § 12101, et seq. and (2) a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), California 22 Civil Code § 51–53. (Doc. No. 1-2 at 7–9.) Pertinent here, Defendant asserts that “the Court 23 lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s ADA claim, which has been rendered moot 24 because the Subject Videos are now captioned.” (Doc. No. 10 at 8.) Defendant further 25 contends that the Court “should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 26 Plaintiff’s remaining Unruh Act claim.” (Id.) 27 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction[.] It is to be presumed that a cause 28 lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon 1 the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America,

375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). In response to Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff filed a 3 non-opposition, conceding that his ADA claim should be dismissed as moot, and that his 4 remaining Unruh Act claim should be remanded. (Doc. No. 13 at 1–2.) The Court agrees. 5 Specifically, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s sole ADA claim has been rendered moot 6 because Defendant has remedied the alleged barriers by providing closed captions to the 7 Subject Videos. See Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.,

(2013) (“A case becomes 8 moot—and therefore no longer a Case or Controversy for purposes of Article III—when 9 the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in 10 the outcome.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Court therefore dismisses 11 Plaintiff’s ADA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 12 As the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claim, the Court declines to exercise 13 supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claim under California’s Unruh 14 Civil Rights Act, and will remand that claim to state court, from where this action was 15 removed. See, e.g., Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co.,

(9th Cir. 2011) 16 (holding that the district court did not err “in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 17 over [plaintiff’s] state law claims” when it “properly disposed of ‘all claims over which it 18 had original jurisdiction.’”) (citing

(c)(3)). 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, based on the foregoing: 2 1. The Court finds Defendant’s motion suitable for determination on the papers 3 and without oral argument; the motion hearing on March 4, 2021 is therefore 4 VACATED. Civil Local R. 7.1.d.1. 5 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 10.) 6 3. Plaintiff's ADA claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 7 4. Defendant’s request for costs! pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 54(d) is DENIED because “costs under Rule 54(d) may not be awarded where 9 an underlying claim is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for in 10 that case the dismissed party is not a “prevailing party’ within the meaning of 11 Rule 54(d).” Miles v. State of California,

(9th Cir. 2003) 12 5. The action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of San Diego. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 ||Dated: January 26, 2021 © ¢ 16 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' Defendant did not request costs in its motion to dismiss and raised the issue for the first time in its reply brief. (Doc. No. 14 at 2.)