1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 BRIAN WHITAKER, 7 Case No. 21-cv-04301-EJD Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 DISMISS SHERWOOD MANAGEMENT CO., INC., 10 Re: Dkt. No. 20 Defendant. 11

12 Plaintiff Brian Whitaker brings this action against Defendant Sherwood Management Co., 13 Inc. for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),

14 et seq., and the Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”),

. See Compl., Dkt. 15 No. 1. Defendant moves to dismiss the ADA claim (Cause of Action 1) as moot and for failure to 16 state a claim. Dkt. No. 20 at 6; see Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co.,

(9th Cir. 17 2011) (“Because a private plaintiff can sue only for injunctive relief . . ., a defendant’s voluntary 18 removal of alleged barriers prior to trial can have the effect of mooting a plaintiff’s ADA claim.”). 19 The motion was heard on June 30, 2022. 20 Based on representations made in the hearing and in Certified Access Specialist Roberto 21 Cortez’s Accessibility Survey Report, the Court finds that Daniel’s Jewelers (“Store”) was and is 22 in compliance with the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) Standards for Accessible 23 Design. See Declaration by Roberto Cortez in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 24 Complaint, Dkt. 20-4). During the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the Store had a policy 25 violation. However, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege any policy violation. Therefore, the 26 Court rejects Plaintiff’s policy argument. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s ADA claim 27 is moot and GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the ADA claim with prejudice. 1 Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim is DISMISSED without prejudice because the Court declines 2 || to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to

(c)(3). “District courts ‘may’— 3 and often do—‘decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ if, as here, they have ‘dismissed all 4 || claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” Johnson v. Montpelier One LLC, No. 19-CV- 5 || 06214-EJD,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2020) (citing

(c)(3)). 6 || The Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to

(c)(4). 7 See Arroyo v. Rosas,

(9th Cir. 2021). This case is in its early stages, so 8 concerns of judicial economy, convenience, fairness to litigants, and comity do not favor retaining 9 || jurisdiction. See

. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: June 30, 2022 a (12 EDWARD J. DAVILA 13 United States District Judge

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 21-cv-4301-EJD ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DIMISS