Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06852/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06852-2/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

THERESA BROOKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIHH LP,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-06852-SI 

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S 

UNRUH ACT CLAIM

Re: Dkt. No. 15

The Court is in receipt of plaintiff Theresa Brooke’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) 

(Dkt. No. 15). Plaintiff’s FAC again alleges an Unruh Act claim, despite the Court’s previous 

dismissal of that claim with prejudice. 

The Court may strike portions of a pleading that are precluded by a previous order. Cleverley 

v. Ballantyne, No. 2:12-cv-00444, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9592, at *9 (D. Nev. Jan 24, 2014)

(striking paragraphs of a pleading barred by a prior court order). “Plaintiff risks sanctions by 

repleading claims previously dismissed with prejudice.” Franconero v. UMG Recordings Inc., No. 

12-cv-03382, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201091, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2014); see also Destfino v. 

Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 959 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming the court’s inherent power to control its docket 

by dismissing a complaint for failure to comply with instructions provided on leave to amend).

Plaintiff need not replead the Unruh Act claim to preserve it for appeal. See Lacey v. 

Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“For claims dismissed with 

prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not require that they be repled in a subsequent 

amended complaint to preserve them for appeal.”). 

However, even if plaintiff were granted leave to replead the Unruh Act claim, plaintiff’s new 

facts—namely, defendant’s rebranding and plaintiff’s new office in San Jose, California—still fail 

Case 3:19-cv-06852-SI Document 16 Filed 03/10/20 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

to show the alleged injury occurred in California. FAC ⁋ 1 and footnote 2. The Unruh Act only 

applies to “persons within the jurisdiction of [California].” Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51(b), (f). Plaintiff 

is a citizen of Arizona and the alleged harm occurred in Arizona where plaintiff viewed defendant’s 

website, so plaintiff does not have standing to bring an Unruh Act claim. Plaintiff was only granted 

leave to amend her Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim. 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court orders plaintiff’s Unruh Act 

claim STRICKEN from plaintiff’s FAC. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2020

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-06852-SI Document 16 Filed 03/10/20 Page 2 of 2