Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02102/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02102-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE DANIEL CASTILLO-ANTONIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUSHDEY O. HESHMA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02102-EDL 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. No. 44

On May 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed this case, alleging violations of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California law. On November 20, 2015, Defendants filed a motion 

arguing that Plaintiff’s ADA claim is moot because they have remedied all of the alleged ADA 

violations and that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 

state law claims. On January 13, 2016, this Court denied Defendants’ motion because it was not 

sufficiently clear that all violations had been remedied and ordered Plaintiff to conduct a follow-up 

inspection. On February 5, 2016, the Parties filed status updates in which they both agreed that 

“all barriers have been remedied.” (Dkt. 36 (Plaintiff’s Status Update) at 3; Dkt. 43 (Defendants’ 

Status Update) at 2.) On February 22, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this 

case should not be dismissed. The Court set a February 29, 2016 deadline to respond to its order 

and warned Plaintiff that if he “fails to file a response . . . the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA 

claim with prejudice and dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice.” (Dkt. 44.)

Plaintiff failed to timely respond to this Court’s order. Accordingly, this case is hereby 

dismissed. Plaintiff’s ADA claim is dismissed with prejudice. See Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 

654 F.3d 903, 905 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A] defendant’s voluntary removal of alleged barriers prior to 

trial can have the effect of mooting a plaintiff's ADA claim.”). The Court declines to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and those claims are 

Case 3:15-cv-02102-EDL Document 45 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

dismissed without prejudice. See Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 

2010) (“‘In the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance 

of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine – judicial economy, 

convenience, fairness, and comity – will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the 

remaining state-law claims.’” (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7 

(1988)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2016

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02102-EDL Document 45 Filed 03/01/16 Page 2 of 2