Theresa Brooke v. Radhika-Shyam Incorporated, a California Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- John A. Houston (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pending motion to dismiss in a civil rights case where the plaintiff died during the proceedings. The court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing on whether the plaintiff's estate has standing to pursue the ADA claim or if the claim is moot due to the lack of a threat of future injury.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring parties to file supplemental briefing on the issue of standing and mootness regarding the ADA claim following the plaintiff's death.“The Court HEREBY ORDERS the parties to file supplemental briefing on the pending Motion to Dismiss filed in ECF No. 14 as a result of Plaintiff’s October 23, 2025 filing in ECF No. 19.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the death of the plaintiff raises significant procedural and substantive issues regarding the ADA claim, specifically whether the claim survives for the estate or is moot because the ADA requires a showing of a threat of future injury which a deceased person cannot face. Requiring briefing is a standard and appropriate procedural mechanism to resolve these threshold issues before ruling on the motion to dismiss. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural directive to obtain briefing on a specific legal question. It correctly cites the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (Fortyune) regarding the nature of ADA remedies and standing requirements. It does not make a final ruling on the merits but appropriately identifies the legal conflict arising from the plaintiff's death. The reasoning is sound for the purpose of managing the case and ensuring the court has the necessary arguments to decide the motion to dismiss.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THERESA BROOKE, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00202-JAH-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO 13 v. FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 14 RADHIKA-SHYAM INCORPORATED, [ECF No. 19] a California Corporation, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendant Radhika-Shyam Inc.’s (“Defendant”) motion 18 to dismiss. ECF No. 14 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). Plaintiff Theresa Brooke (“Plaintiff”) 19 opposes the motion. ECF No. 15 (“Opposition” or “Opp.”). Defendant has filed its reply. 20 ECF No. 18 (“Reply”). Plaintiff’s complaint raises two claims against the Defendant under 21 the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Unruh Act. See ECF No. 1 22 (“Complaint” or “Compl.”). 23 On October 23, 2025, Plaintiff’s attorney filed a statement of the Plaintiff’s death 24 and indicated that her estate will be substituted to prosecute the above-entitled civil matter. 25 ECF No. 19. The Court HEREBY ORDERS the parties to file supplemental briefing on 26 the pending Motion to Dismiss filed in ECF No. 14 as a result of Plaintiff’s October 23, 27 2025 filing in ECF No. 19. 28 l Specifically, the Court ORDERS the parties to file supplemental briefing addressing 2 || the following issue: 3 The only remedy for an individual raising a claim under the ADA is injunctive relief. 4 || Fortyune v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075, 1081 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff's ADA 5 ||claim seeks an injunction directing Defendant “to take all steps necessary to bring its 6 || parking lot into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA[.]” Compl. at 7 To establish standing for injunctive relief, the Plaintiff must show “sufficient 8 || likelihood that [she] will be wronged again in a similar manner.” See Fortyune, 364 F.3d 9 |}at 1081. In other words, to succeed on a claim for a violation of the ADA, Plaintiff must 10 |/ establish a “real and immediate threat of repeated injury.” /d. 11 Based on the notice of death filed by Plaintiff's counsel, does Plaintiff's estate have 12 standing to prosecute the ADA claim raised in the complaint, or is the ADA claim moot 13 || because there exists no immediate threat of future injury? 14 15 1. Plaintiff may file supplemental briefing on the question presented above by 6 December 18, 2025 in a filing not to exceed ten pages; 7 2. Defendant may file a response by January 6, 2026 in a filing not to exceed ten pages; ig and 19 3. Plaintiff may reply by January 12, 2026.
20 51 IT IS SO ORDERED.
22 33 DATED: November 24, 2025 24 VU 25 JOHN A. HOUSTON 26 j/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28