Brooke v. Radhika-Shyam Incorporated

1
3:25-cv-00202-JAH-JLB
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
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
THERESA BROOKE, a married woman
dealing with her sole and separate claim,
Plaintiff,
v.
RADHIKA-SHYAM INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-00202-JAH-JLB
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
[ECF No. 14]
Pending before the Court is Defendant Radhika-Shyam Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion
to Dismiss. ECF No. 14 (“Motion”). Plaintiff Theresa Brooke (“Plaintiff”) opposed the
Motion and Defendant replied. ECF Nos. 15, 18. Plaintiff also submitted supplemental
briefing. ECF No. 21. For the reasons described below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
BACKGROUND
On January 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, raising two
claims, one under Title III of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and one under
the Unruh Act. See ECF No. 1. On April 8, 2025, Defendant filed this Motion under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). See ECF No. 14.
On October 23, 2025, Plaintiff’s attorney filed a statement of Plaintiff’s death and
indicated that her estate would be substituted to prosecute the above-entitled manner. ECF
No. 19. The Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing discussing whether
Plaintiff’s estate, in light of Plaintiff’s death, has standing to prosecute the ADA and Unruh
Act claims. ECF No. 20. On December 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed supplemental briefing.
ECF No. 21. Defendant did not reply.
Case 3:25-cv-00202-JAH-JLB Document 22 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

2
3:25-cv-00202-JAH-JLB
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
LEGAL STANDARD
I. ADA and Unruh Act Standing
“Damages are not an available remedy to individuals under Title III of the ADA;
individuals may receive only injunctive relief.” Ervine v. Desert View Reg’l Med. Ctr.
Holdings, LLC, 753 F.3d 862, 867 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). When an ADA Title
III plaintiff dies, the death renders the claims under Title III for injunctive relief moot
because there is no prospect of a future injury. Kalani v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 698 F.
App’x 883, 885 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). However, the death does not extinguish
nor moot the Unruh Act claims, and estates can be compensated for past harm. Id. (citing
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.34; Cal. Civ. Code § 52).
II. Supplemental Jurisdiction
Federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over “claims that are so
related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the
same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. §
1367(a). However, district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the
district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §
1367(c)(3). In exercising its discretion, district courts may consider the “circumstances of
the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing state
law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims.” City of Chicago v. Int’l
Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997). Courts may also consider “the Gibbs values
‘of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d
999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (citing United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S.
715, 726 (1966)).
DISCUSSION
Here, Plaintiff’s ADA claim is mooted by her death, while the Unruh Act claim
remains live. See Kalani, 698 F. App’x at 885-86. Plaintiff states that “there is no question
that the ADA claim should be dismissed under Kalani.” ECF No. 21 at 3.
//
Case 3:25-cv-00202-JAH-JLB Document 22 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

3
3:25-cv-00202-JAH-JLB
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 question for the Court is whether to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim. Plaintiff requests that the Unruh Act claim be continued under
supplemental jurisdiction. Id. In the alternative, Plaintiff suggests that the Court could
decline supplemental jurisdiction and permit the parties to litigate the Unruh claim in state
court. Id. Plaintiff cites multiple cases where the Court continued to maintain
supplemental jurisdiction of an Unruh Act claim, but the circumstances in those cases and
the instant case are distinguishable. Id. at 2-3.
In Kalani, the trial court already granted judgement in favor of the Plaintiff and
awarded statutory damages under the Unruh Act. Kalani, 698 F. App’x at 885. The Ninth
Circuit ruled that the Unruh Act claim was not extinguished and the estate could be
compensated. Id. In this case, there has been no ruling on the merits. In Ketroser, the
court maintained supplemental jurisdiction because the plaintiff’s widow stated she wished
to file an amended complaint with a similar federal cause of action. Ketroser v. 7-Eleven,
Inc., No. 19-CV-05231-MMC, 2020 WL 12655623, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2020). In
this case, Plaintiff’s spouse has not indicated that he wishes to add a new federal cause of
action. See ECF No. 21. In Brooke v. Tsay Jbr LLC, the cited dockets by Plaintiff were
regarding whether the Unruh claim was live. Brooke v. Tsay Jbr, LLC, 23-CV-7378-DMG
(C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2025), ECF Nos. 66-69. The defendant previously argued for the Court
to keep supplemental jurisdiction as the case had been litigated for years and was set for a
jury trial. Id. at ECF No. 62. This case is in its earlier stages, and no trial date has been
set. Further, Defendant has not indicated a wish for supplemental jurisdiction to be
continued.
Here, the Court dismisses the ADA claim that gave it original jurisdiction due to its
mootness. See Kalani, 698 F. App’x at 885. This allows the Court to decline supplemental
jurisdiction because the Court dismisses the original jurisdiction claim. 18 U.S.C. §
1367(c)(3). The circumstances of this case are distinguished from the cases cited by
Plaintiff, as the federal claim has not been decided on the merits, and Defendant has not
requested that supplemental jurisdiction to be exercised. Moreover, the Gibbs factors do
Case 3:25-cv-00202-JAH-JLB Document 22 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

4
3:25-cv-00202-JAH-JLB
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
not counsel in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court declines
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over the Unruh
Act claim.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s claim under Title III of the ADA is DISMISSED as moot;
2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court DECLINES to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining California Unruh Act claim and that
claim is DISMISSED without prejudice; and
3. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.
Dated: February 19, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-00202-JAH-JLB Document 22 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4