Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06787/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06787-0/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

SAMUEL LOVE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHOPS AT TANFORAN ASSOCIATES, 

LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-06787-JCS 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 

LACK OF JURISDICTION AND 

VACATING MARCH 6, 2020 MOTION 

HEARING

Re: Dkt. No. 38

Plaintiff Samuel Love asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 

42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act based on Defendants’ failure 

to provide accessible sales counters at Regis Salon, in San Bruno California. Presently before the 

Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”). In the Motion, Defendants assert that this 

case is moot because the company that owned Regis Salon has ceased operations and the salon 

closed permanently on January 2, 2020. Therefore, they assert, there is no effective relief the 

Court could award Plaintiff in this action because injunctive relief is the only form or relief 

available under the ADA. Defendants further assert that the Court should decline to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim and instead dismiss this 

action.

Plaintiff does not dispute that the ADA claim is moot, see Opposition at 1, but asks the 

Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim. Courts have discretion to 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims have been 

dismissed if they find that doing so is in the interest of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, 

and comity. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). Given that this case is in 

its early stages, however, the Court finds that these factors favor dismissal of the case. See id. 

Case 3:19-cv-06787-JCS Document 41 Filed 02/18/20 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

(“When the balance of these factors indicates that a case properly belongs in state court, as when 

the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims 

remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without 

prejudice.”). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion and dismisses this case without 

prejudice. The Motion hearing set for March 6, 2020 is vacated.

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2020

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

1 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c).

Case 3:19-cv-06787-JCS Document 41 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 2