Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02777/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02777-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 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 - 09cv2777

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS BARRIA

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv2777 DMS (BLM)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

SUBSTITUTE MARTHA BARRIA

AS PLAINTIFF IN PLACE OF

LUIS BARRIA

[Docket No. 9]

vs.

B EAST, LLC, doing business as

BRIGHTON PLACE EAST, et al,

Defendants.

This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to substitute Martha Barria as Plaintiff

in place of Luis Barria. Defendant filed an opposition to the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply. For

the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion and dismisses the action for lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction.

I. 

BACKGROUND

Intermittently from August 2009 to October 2009, Plaintiff Luis Barria was a patient in a

nursing home facility owned and operated by the Defendant B East, LLC. (Compl. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff

was a physically disabled person and used a wheelchair for mobility during his stay. (Id. at ¶ 10.) On

December 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant regarding its failure to provide him full and

equal access to their facilities. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Plaintiff alleges the following claims for relief: (1)

violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C § 12101, et seq., (“ADA”), (2) violation

Case 3:09-cv-02777-DMS-BLM Document 15 Filed 06/16/10 Page 1 of 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

Rule 25(a)(1) states in pertinent part: “Substitution iftheClaim Is Not Extinguished. If a party

1

dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may ordersubstitution of the proper party. A motion

for substitution may be made by any party or by the decedent’s successor or representative.”

- 2 - 09cv2777

of the California Unruh Act, Civil Code § 51, et seq., (“Unruh Act”), and California Disabled Persons

Act, Civil Code § 54, et seq., (“DPA”), (3) violation of California Health and Safety Code § 19955,

(4) Negligence Per Se, (5) Negligence, (5) Declaratory Relief, and (6) Injunctive Relief.

On February 23, 2010, Plaintiff died. (Mem. P.& A. in Supp. of Mot. at 2.) A notice of fact

of death was filed on April 20, 2010. (Id.; Doc. 8.) Martha Barria is the decedent’s mother and

successor in interest under California law. 

II. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves to substitute Martha Barria in place of Luis Barria under Rule 25(a)(1) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff concedes that Luis Barria’s claims for injunctive relief are

extinguished by his death, but argues that statutoryclaimsfor damages survive and remain recoverable

by Martha Barria as the substituted plaintiff. (Mem. P.& A. in Supp. of Mot. at 2, 3.) Defendant

argues that a majority of the Plaintiff’s claims are extinguished Luis Barria’s death and, in turn,

substitution is inappropriate. 

Rule 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the substitution of parties after

the death of a plaintiff. First Idaho Corp. v. Davis, 867 F. 2d 1241, 1242 (9 Cir. 1989). The rule 1 th

provides for substitution of proper parties where claims are not extinguished by the death of a party.

The determination of whether claims are extinguished for the purposes of substitution is controlled

by the substantive law of the forum. Robertson v. Wegman, 436 U.S. 584 (1978).

Plaintiff’s first claim for relief arises under Title III of the ADA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

12188(a). (Compl. ¶16.) The only remedy available to a private litigant under Title III is injunctive

relief. 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a); see also Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858 (9 Cir. 2002) (“Damages th

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 (9 Cir. 2000) (“Monetary relief is not an option th

for private individuals under Title III of the ADA.”). Claims for injunctive relief require that there

exist a real or immediate threat of irreparable harm. Hangarter v. Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co.,

Case 3:09-cv-02777-DMS-BLM Document 15 Filed 06/16/10 Page 2 of 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 The court does not reach the issue of substitution of Martha Barria over the remaining state 2

law claims.

- 3 - 09cv2777

373 F.3d 998, 1021-1022 (9 Cir. 2004). As conceded by Plaintiff, the death of a plaintiff renders a th

claim for injunctive relief moot. ISC, Inc. v. California, 2010 WL 1936369, at *1 (9 Cir. 2010) th

(citing Kennerly v. U.S., 721 F.2d 1252, 1260 (9 Cir. 1983)). Therefore, Plaintiff LuisBarria’s death th

extinguished his ADA claim and Martha Barria cannot be properly substituted as Plaintiff. 

The extinguishment of Plaintiff’s ADA claim leaves only state law claims in this matter. A

court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the court

has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Here, the

Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and therefore dismisses the remaining state law

claims without prejudice.2

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for substitution is denied. The matter is dismissed

without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 16, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02777-DMS-BLM Document 15 Filed 06/16/10 Page 3 of 3