Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-06313/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-06313-1/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

PATRICK CONNALLY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALCOS FAMOUS MARKET DELI & 

BAKERY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-06313-SK 

REFERRAL FOR REASSIGNMENT 

AND REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Regarding Docket No. 14

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion for substitution filed 

by Michael J. Connally, the brother of the deceased plaintiff Patrick Connally.1 Several of the 

defendants have not consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), 

and, therefore, the Court does not have authority to make a dispositive ruling in this case. 

Accordingly, the Court orders that this case be REASSIGNED to a District Judge. For the reasons 

set forth below, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court DENY the motion to substitute 

and DISMISS the remaining state law claims without prejudice.

The Court held a hearing on the motion to substitute, but no parties appeared. At 3:50 p.m. 

on May 31, 2016, ten minutes before the Clerk’s office closes, Plaintiff filed a request to appear by 

telephone at the hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m. the following morning. Plaintiff did not provide 

any reason for the need to appear by telephone or explain why the administrative motion was filed 

so late. The Court denied the request without prejudice. Plaintiff’s counsel then left a voicemail 

message on the morning of the hearing explaining that he did not plan to attend the hearing. No 

Defendants appeared. The parties are admonished that attendance at Court hearings is not

 

1 Counsel for Patrick Connally and Michael J. Connally purports to be the one moving for 

substitution. However, as counsel, he is filing the motion on behalf of his clients.

Case 3:15-cv-06313-WHA Document 20 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 3
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

voluntary. In the future, any failure by these attorneys, particularly the moving party, to attend 

hearings or otherwise abide by the Court’s Standing Orders will be sanctioned.

Patrick Connally filed suit against Defendants for denial of full and equal enjoyment and 

use under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”). Claims also include 

California state claims pursuant to the Unruh Act, California Civil Code § 51, California’s Health 

and Safety Code § 19955, and California Civil Code §§ 54, 54.1 and 54.3. Patrick Connally died 

on February 1, 2016, before the resolution of this matter. (Dkt. 14-4). His brother, Michael J. 

Connally, is now moving to substitute in as plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

25(a)(1) (“Rule 25”).

Rule 25(a)(1) governs the substitution of parties after the death of a plaintiff. 2See First 

Idaho Corp. v. Davis, 867 F.2d 1241, 1242 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Rule 25(a) dictates the method of 

substitution of parties in the federal courts and is purely procedural”). When a party dies and the 

claim is not extinguished by applicable substantive law, the court may order substitution of the 

deceased party with the proper legal representative. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1); Hilao v. Estate of 

Marcos, 103 F3d 762, 766 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Patrick Connally’s sole federal claim is under Title III of the ADA. Private individuals 

may only obtain injunctive relief under Title III. See 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a); see also Wander v. 

Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Damages are not recoverable under Title III of the 

ADA – only injunctive relief is available for violations of Title III”); Fisher v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 

F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Monetary relief is not an option for private individuals under 

Title III of the ADA.”). Because claims for injunctive relief require a real or immediate threat of 

irreparable harm, the death of Patrick Connally rendered his ADA claim moot. Kennerly v. United 

States, 721 F.2d 1252, 1260 (9th Cir. 1983); see also ISC, Inc. v. California, 379 F. App’x 577 

(9th Cir. 2010) (finding the party’s claims were moot in light of his recent death). Therefore, 

 

2 Rule 25(a)(1) provides in pertinent part: “If a party dies and the claim is not thereby 

extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper parties. The motion for substitution 

may be made by any party or by the successors or representatives of the deceased . . . .” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 25(a)(1).

Case 3:15-cv-06313-WHA Document 20 Filed 06/01/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Patrick Connally’s death extinguished his ADA claim, and Michael Connally may not be 

substituted in as the plaintiff for the ADA claim. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that 

the ADA claim be DISMISSED as moot. 

Absent the ADA claim, there is no independent basis for the exercise of federal 

jurisdiction. The Court FURTHER RECOMMENDS that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the 

District Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims

and DISMISS them without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2016

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-06313-WHA Document 20 Filed 06/01/16 Page 3 of 3