Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01484/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01484-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHIU LIN, in his individual 

and representative capacity 

as Trustee, Kuo & Chiu Lin 

Family Trust,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-01484-GEB-DAD

ORDER 

Plaintiff’s Trial Brief, (ECF No. 29), addresses 

multiple issues that are set forth as undisputed facts in the 

Final Pretrial Order. The parties shall limit their presentation 

of evidence at trial to matters not already established as 

undisputed. See United States v. First Nat’l Bank of Circle, 652 

F.2d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 1981) (“[The] part[ies] need offer no 

proof at trial as to matters agreed to in the [Final Pretrial 

O]rder . . . .”).

Further, Defendant states as a proposed conclusion of 

law that “[t]he Court lacks jurisdiction in this case as no 

Federal question presently exists.” (Def.’s Proposed Findings of 

Fact & Conclusions of Law 2:1-2, ECF No. 35.) However, the Final 

Pretrial Order preserved for trial Plaintiff’s claim for 

injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act

Case 2:13-cv-01484-GEB-DB Document 38 Filed 08/24/15 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

2

(“ADA”) “for the alleged continued existence of [certain 

identified barriers],” and lists as a disputed factual issue:

“[w]hether the van parking space, ramp, and restroom at [T&R] are 

presently fully ADA compliant.” (Final Pretrial Order 3:1-4, 

5:13-14, ECF No. 27.) The Final Pretrial Order’s “Disputed 

Factual Issues” section incorporated the parties’ “Disputed 

Factual Issues,” as stated in their Joint Pretrial Statement.

(See Joint Pretrial Statement 3:22-23, ECF No. 26.) The 

undisputed facts section of the Final Pretrial Order does not 

establish that the barriers listed in that order have been 

remedied. However, even if Defendant ultimately establishes that 

the referenced barriers have been remedied, Defendant has not 

shown that the Court would lack supplemental jurisdiction over 

Plaintiff’s Unruh Civil Rights Act claims or should decline 

exercising that jurisdiction. See Munger v. City of Glasgow 

Police Dept., 227 F.3d 1082, 1088 n.4 (9th Cir. 2000) (affirming 

district court’s decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 

over state law claims after dismissing federal claims, stating 

“[a]lthough the district court could have declined to exercise 

jurisdiction over those claims, it was not required to do so” 

(citing Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 

1997))). Therefore, Defendant has not shown the Court lacks 

jurisdiction to proceed to trial.

Dated: August 24, 2015

Case 2:13-cv-01484-GEB-DB Document 38 Filed 08/24/15 Page 2 of 2