Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02728/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02728-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT SCHUTZA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv2728-LAB (DHB)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

EL CAJON PROPERTIES, LLC,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Scott Schutza filed his complaint on November 18, 2014, bringing claims

under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and supplemental state-law claims. The

Court is obligated to confirm its own jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary, and to dismiss the

complaint if jurisdiction is lacking. See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939,

954 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc). The complaint must plead facts, not merely conclusions, to

invoke Court's jurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014)

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); and

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 663 (2009)). 

Here, Schutza has failed to allege facts showing he has standing to bring his ADA

claim. Furthermore, because the only remedy available to Schutza under the ADA is

injunctive relief, see Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858 (9th Cir. 2002), if injunctive relief

is unavailable or would be ineffective, the ADA claim is moot. If the Court lacks jurisdiction

over his federal claim, it cannot exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state claims. 

- 1 - 14cv2728

Case 3:14-cv-02728-LAB-DHB Document 4 Filed 11/21/14 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The complaint adequately alleges that Schutza is disabled, that he found the parking

lot non-compliant with the ADA when he visited, and that he would like to return. But beyond

alleging the parking lot “caused him difficulty” (Compl., ¶ 11), he never says how the ADA

violation harmed him or will harm him, or how it is deterring him from returning. Furthermore,

he never alleges facts showing how injunctive relief would be of help to him. For example,

if the Court ordered Defendants to correct all the conditions he identifies, it is still unknown

whether he would get any relief. 

Schutza's counsel has been cautioned about the necessity of pleading facts to

establish jurisdiction. (See Langer v. Wisham, 14cv1857-LAB (KSC), Docket no. 5 (Order

to Show Cause re: Jurisdiction); Langer v. Shamoun, 14cv1822-LAB (BLM), Docket no. 7

(Order to Show Cause re: jurisdiction; Langer v. Velasquez, 14cv1822-LAB (BLM), Docket

no. 7 (Order to Show Cause re: Jursidction).) Schutza’s counsel has had at least one of his

complaints dismissed before for similar defects. (See Schutza v. PS Orangeco, 14cv2086-

LAB (NLS), Docket no. 5 (Order of Dismissal).) And Schutza himself has pleaded such facts

before. (See, e.g., Schutza v. Estudillo, 14cv1653-LAB (NLS), Complaint, ¶ 10 (alleging that

the slope of parking spaces caused Schutza's wheelchair to roll down the hill when he

parked there).) Because both Schutza and his counsel are aware of this requirement and

have not complied with it, dismissal rather than an order to show cause is appropriate.

This action is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may, if he

wishes, file an amended complaint by December 3, 2014, showing why the Court has

jurisdiction over this action. If he fails to amend within the time permitted, this action will be

dismissed without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 21, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 14cv2728

Case 3:14-cv-02728-LAB-DHB Document 4 Filed 11/21/14 Page 2 of 2