1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 BRIAN WHITAKER, 4 Case No. 21-cv-03469-JCS Plaintiff, 5 6 V. ORDER OF DISMISSAL JACK SEN BENEVOLENT 7 ASSOCIATION, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Plaintiff filed a notice stating that “the barriers alleged in his Complaint have been 11 || removed and currently the subject property is fully remediated and accessible for person with = 12 || disabilities, specifically wheelchair users” and therefore, that he is “now satisfied his claim for

13 || injunctive relief has been rendered moot.” Dkt. 19. In response to the Court’s Order to Show

v 14 Cause Why Case Should not be Dismissed [dkt.20], Plaintiff further states that he does not object

15 || to the Court dismissing his claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) on the basis Q 16 || that it is moot and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his California Unruh Act

= 17 || claim, which is the only remaining claim in the case. Accordingly, the Court dismisses □□□□□□□□□□ □

18 || ADA claim without prejudice on the basis that itis moot. See Transp. Techs., LLC v. Los Angeles 19 Metro. Transportation Auth., No. CV 15-6423-RSWL-MRW,

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 20 || May 8, 2019) (holding that dismissal based on mootness must be without prejudice because “when 21 a case is moot, there is no longer a live case or controversy over which a federal court has Article 22 || Ul jurisdiction”) (citing Cole v. Oroville Union High Sch, Dist.,

, 1098 (9th Cir. 23 || 2000)). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, which 24 || is also dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is instructed to close the file in this case. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: October 3, 2022 27 € J PH C. SPERO 28 ief Magistrate Judge