Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00601/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00601-1/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.

RINO FAIRFAX GAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00601-JD 

ORDER RE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE

PLAINTIFF AND MOTION TO AMEND 

COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 20, 23

Patrick Connally filed this suit in February 2015 alleging that barriers at Rino Fairfax Gas 

denied him full and equal access to the facility in a wheelchair. Dkt. No. 1. He brought one claim 

under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., “ADA”), and three 

claims for violations of California state law. Defendants are Rino Fairfax Gas, Keet Nehran, and 

two other individuals doing business as Ferraro Fairfax Service. Plaintiff alleges the Court has 

federal question jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law 

claims. Id. ¶ 3. 

Connally died on February 1, 2016. Dkt. No. 20-1 at 1. His brother Michael Connally 

seeks to maintain the case by substituting in as plaintiff, Dkt. No. 20, and amending the complaint 

to add another disabled person, Harrison Benjamin Kinney, as another plaintiff. Dkt. No. 23. For 

reasons unknown to the Court and unexplained by the moving parties, Kinney recently filed a 

separate lawsuit on his own behalf that alleges the same claims against the defendants. Kinney v. 

Rino Fairfax Gas, No. 16-cv-3229, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2016), which leaves the motion 

to add him as a plaintiff here in an odd position. 

The pending motions are suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 7-1(b). The motions to substitute in Connally and amend the complaint are denied, 

Case 3:15-cv-00601-JD Document 29 Filed 06/16/16 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

and the case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The reasons for these orders are straightforward. Michael Connally cannot succeed to his 

brother’s ADA claim because it was extinguished at his death. Patrick Connally’s ADA claim 

sought only injunctive relief, which “is the sole remedy available to private parties under the 

Disabilities Act; it does not authorize a claim for money damages.” Antoninetti v. Chipotle 

Mexican Grill, Inc., 643 F.3d 1165, 1174 (9th Cir. 2010). His “claims for injunctive relief are 

moot in light of his recent death.” See ISC, Inc. v. California, 379 F. App’x 577, 577 (9th Cir. 

2010) (citing Kennerly v. United States, 721 F.2d 1252, 1260 (9th Cir. 1983)). Because Patrick 

Connally’s death extinguished the ADA claim, Michael Connally cannot be substituted as plaintiff 

for that claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a). And as a non-disabled person, Michael Connally concedes 

that he “would lack the requisite standing himself to maintain” the ADA claim. Dkt. No. 22 at 1. 

That leaves only the pendant state law claims in the case, which the Court declines to hear 

now that the federal claim over which it had original jurisdiction has been extinguished. 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As a general rule, “state law claims ‘should’ be dismissed if federal claims 

are dismissed before trial.” Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997)

(quoting United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966)) (emphasis in original). No 

reasons have been proffered to vary from this usual practice and in any event it appears that 

basically the same claims against defendants have been alleged in Kinney’s separate lawsuit. 

The motion to amend the complaint to add Kinney and his claims is denied for similar 

reasons. Michael Connally initially asked to add Kinney “in lieu of filing a separate lawsuit on 

Mr. Kinney’s behalf.” Dkt. No. 23-2 at 2. But events have overtaken this proposal and the motion 

is moot in light of Kinney’s filing of a separate suit. Connally does not say why allowing 

amendment of the complaint to repeat those same claims here would in any way be efficient and in 

the interest of justice, and the Court certainly cannot think of a good reason for it. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 15. Amendment is denied. 

Case 3:15-cv-00601-JD Document 29 Filed 06/16/16 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

Because Patrick Connally’s ADA claim has been extinguished, and the Court declines 

supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims, the case is dismissed without leave to amend. 

The hearing set for June 29, 2016 is vacated and the Court directs the Clerk to close the case file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00601-JD Document 29 Filed 06/16/16 Page 3 of 3