Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 THERESA BROOKE, a married woman Case No.: 3:25-cv-00202-JAH-JLB dealing with her sole and separate claim, 8 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 9 DISMISS v. 10 [ECF No. 14] RADHIKA-SHYAM INCORPORATED, 11 Defendant. 12 13 14 Pending before the Court is Defendant Radhika-Shyam Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion 15 to Dismiss. ECF No. 14 (“Motion”). Plaintiff Theresa Brooke (“Plaintiff”) opposed the 16 Motion and Defendant replied. ECF Nos. 15, 18. Plaintiff also submitted supplemental 17 briefing. ECF No. 21. For the reasons described below, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 18 BACKGROUND 19 On January 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, raising two 20 claims, one under Title III of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and one under 21 the Unruh Act. See ECF No. 1. On April 8, 2025, Defendant filed this Motion under 22 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). See ECF No. 14. 23 On October 23, 2025, Plaintiff’s attorney filed a statement of Plaintiff’s death and 24 indicated that her estate would be substituted to prosecute the above-entitled manner. ECF 25 No. 19. The Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing discussing whether 26 Plaintiff’s estate, in light of Plaintiff’s death, has standing to prosecute the ADA and Unruh 27 Act claims. ECF No. 20. On December 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed supplemental briefing. 28 ECF No. 21. Defendant did not reply. 1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 I. ADA and Unruh Act Standing 3 “Damages are not an available remedy to individuals under Title III of the ADA; 4 individuals may receive only injunctive relief.” Ervine v. Desert View Reg’l Med. Ctr. 5 Holdings, LLC, 753 F.3d 862, 867 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). When an ADA Title 6 III plaintiff dies, the death renders the claims under Title III for injunctive relief moot 7 because there is no prospect of a future injury. Kalani v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 698 F. 8 App’x 883, 885 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). However, the death does not extinguish 9 nor moot the Unruh Act claims, and estates can be compensated for past harm. Id. (citing 10 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.34; Cal. Civ. Code § 52). 11 II. Supplemental Jurisdiction 12 Federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over “claims that are so 13 related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the 14 same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 15 1367(a). However, district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the 16 district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 17 1367(c)(3). In exercising its discretion, district courts may consider the “circumstances of 18 the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing state 19 law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims.” City of Chicago v. Int’l 20 Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997). Courts may also consider “the Gibbs values 21 ‘of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 22 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (citing United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 23 715, 726 (1966)). 24 DISCUSSION 25 Here, Plaintiff’s ADA claim is mooted by her death, while the Unruh Act claim 26 remains live. See Kalani, 698 F. App’x at 885-86. Plaintiff states that “there is no question 27 that the ADA claim should be dismissed under Kalani.” ECF No. 21 at 3. 28 // 1 The question for the Court is whether to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over 2 Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim. Plaintiff requests that the Unruh Act claim be continued under 3 supplemental jurisdiction. Id. In the alternative, Plaintiff suggests that the Court could 4 decline supplemental jurisdiction and permit the parties to litigate the Unruh claim in state 5 court. Id. Plaintiff cites multiple cases where the Court continued to maintain 6 supplemental jurisdiction of an Unruh Act claim, but the circumstances in those cases and 7 the instant case are distinguishable. Id. at 2-3. 8 In Kalani, the trial court already granted judgement in favor of the Plaintiff and 9 awarded statutory damages under the Unruh Act. Kalani, 698 F. App’x at 885. The Ninth 10 Circuit ruled that the Unruh Act claim was not extinguished and the estate could be 11 compensated. Id. In this case, there has been no ruling on the merits. In Ketroser, the 12 court maintained supplemental jurisdiction because the plaintiff’s widow stated she wished 13 to file an amended complaint with a similar federal cause of action. Ketroser v. 7-Eleven, 14 Inc., No. 19-CV-05231-MMC, 2020 WL 12655623, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2020). In 15 this case, Plaintiff’s spouse has not indicated that he wishes to add a new federal cause of 16 action. See ECF No. 21. In Brooke v. Tsay Jbr LLC, the cited dockets by Plaintiff were 17 regarding whether the Unruh claim was live. Brooke v. Tsay Jbr, LLC, 23-CV-7378-DMG 18 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2025), ECF Nos. 66-69. The defendant previously argued for the Court 19 to keep supplemental jurisdiction as the case had been litigated for years and was set for a 20 jury trial. Id. at ECF No. 62. This case is in its earlier stages, and no trial date has been 21 set. Further, Defendant has not indicated a wish for supplemental jurisdiction to be 22 continued. 23 Here, the Court dismisses the ADA claim that gave it original jurisdiction due to its 24 mootness. See Kalani, 698 F. App’x at 885. This allows the Court to decline supplemental 25 jurisdiction because the Court dismisses the original jurisdiction claim. 18 U.S.C. § 26 1367(c)(3). The circumstances of this case are distinguished from the cases cited by 27 Plaintiff, as the federal claim has not been decided on the merits, and Defendant has not 28 requested that supplemental jurisdiction to be exercised. Moreover, the Gibbs factors do 1 counsel in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court declines 2 ||to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over the Unruh 3 || Act claim. 4 CONCLUSION 5 || Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff's claim under Title HII of the ADA is DISMISSED as moot; 7 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court DECLINES to exercise 8 supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining California Unruh Act claim and that 9 claim is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 10 3. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. 11 12 13 Dated: February 19, 2026 15 {United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28