Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02102/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02102-1/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 TO SHOW CAUSE

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.) Therefore, it appears that Plaintiff’s ADA claim should be dismissed as 

moot. 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.”). If the Court dismisses the ADA claim, it would decline to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims as “‘[i]n 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.’” Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 

Case 3:15-cv-02102-EDL Document 44 Filed 02/22/16 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

F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7 

(1988)); Oliver, 654 F.3d at 911 (district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the 

plaintiff’s state law claims after it granted summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiff’s 

ADA claim).

While Plaintiff contends that he needs discovery to pursue statutory damages, attorneys’ 

fees and costs, dismissal of the case as moot would not support any such award. See Oliver, 654 

F.3d at 905 (“a private plaintiff can sue only for injunctive relief . . . under the ADA”).1 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be dismissed. 

Plaintiff’s response of no more than 10 pages to this order shall be filed no later than February 29, 

2016. It is further ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to file a response to this order, the Court will 

dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA claim with prejudice and dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims without 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1 Although the ADA provides for recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs for “prevailing plaintiffs,” 

there is no “prevailing” party in a moot case. See Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. 

Virginia Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 605 (2001) (“Our precedents [] counsel 

against holding that the term ‘prevailing party’ authorizes an award of attorney's fees without a 

corresponding alteration in the legal relationship of the parties.”); Feezor v. Lawrence J. Zangari, 

Inc., 2008 WL 4279410, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2008) (“Here, Plaintiff [] brought an action 

under the ADA and a parallel action under the CDPA. Defendants' remedial action of the alleged 

ADA and parallel CDPA violations rendered those violations moot. . . . Although California 

recognizes the catalyst theory under which a party may be considered a prevailing party, the 

Buckhannon court explicitly abolished the theory as a permissible basis for the award of attorney's 

fees under the ADA . . . . Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney's fees under federal law.”).

February 22, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-02102-EDL Document 44 Filed 02/22/16 Page 2 of 2