Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01783/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01783-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Johnson
Plaintiff
Gurenderjeet Sandhu
Defendant
Gurlal Singh Sandhu
Defendant

Document Text:

1 

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

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

Keith D. Cable, Esq., SBN 170055 

CABLE GALLAGHER 

101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 

Folsom, CA 95630 

916/608-7995 Tel. 

916/608-7986 Fax 

Attorneys for Defendant 

GURENDERJEET SANDHU 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

 SCOTT JOHNSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

GURLAL SINGH SANDHU; 

GURENDERJEET SANDHU; and DOES 

1-10, 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 2:13-CV-01783-JAM-KJN 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Date: November 5, 2014 

Time: 9:30 a.m. 

Courtroom: 6 (14th Floor) 

Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez

 On November 5, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 6, Plaintiff Scott Johnson’s motion for 

summary judgment came before the Court for hearing. Plaintiff appeared through counsel, 

Russell Handy of The Center for Disability Access. Defendant Gurenderjeet Sandhu 

appeared through counsel, Keith D. Cable of the Cable Gallagher law firm. 

Case 2:13-cv-01783-JAM-KJN Document 30 Filed 11/17/14 Page 1 of 3
 

2 

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

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

 Having reviewed the moving and opposition papers, and having heard oral argument, 

the Court rules as follows: 

 Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to the First Cause of Action under the ADA. Plaintiff has 

failed to meet his burden under FRCP 56(a) that there is no genuine dispute that the ADA 

barriers remain. In fact, during oral argument, Plaintiff’s counsel conceded that the barriers 

alleged to have existed at the time of Plaintiff’s visits have been rendered ADA-compliant. 

Since injunctive relief is the only remedy available under the ADA, when an alleged ADA 

violation is remedied, it renders a pending ADA claim moot. See Feezor v. Patterson, 896 

F.Supp.2d 895, 901, n.4 (E.D. Cal. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s ADA claim is dismissed with 

prejudice. 

 Conversely, and in light of Plaintiff’s concession that the alleged barriers have been 

remedied, the Court grants summary judgment sua sponte in favor of Defendant as to the 

First Cause of Action under the ADA. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett (1986) 477 U.S. 317, 326, 

106 S.Ct. 2548, 2554. 

 Since the federal ADA claim is dismissed, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction 

over Plaintiff’s supplemental state law claims which allege violations of the Unruh Civil Rights 

Act, Disabled Persons Act, and for negligence. See Religious Tech. Ctr v. Wollersheim, 971 

F.2d 364, 367-68 (9th Cir. 1992)(the general rule is when federal claims are dismissed before 

trial pendent state claims should also be dismissed). Therefore, Plaintiff’s supplemental state 

law claims are dismissed without prejudice. 

Case 2:13-cv-01783-JAM-KJN Document 30 Filed 11/17/14 Page 2 of 3
 

3 

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 11/14/2014. 

 /s/ John A. Mendez_______________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-01783-JAM-KJN Document 30 Filed 11/17/14 Page 3 of 3