Colton Bryant v. Monkish Brewing Co. LLC et al.

Bryant v. Monkish Brewing Co. · United States District Court for the Central District of California · November 4, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-10489-SVW-SSC

Summary

The Central District of California ordered the parties to file a joint status report addressing alleged ADA barriers, any remedial measures, and potential summary judgment motions. The court also ordered the plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims and to provide information concerning requested statutory damages and high-frequency litigant status. The plaintiff was directed to respond within 14 days, with failure to respond potentially resulting in dismissal.

Holdings

  1. When a defendant removes alleged ADA barriers and demonstrates that the barriers could not reasonably be expected to arise again, the ADA claim may be rendered moot and dismissed.
  2. Nominal damages are not available under Title III of the ADA; therefore, pleading nominal damages does not prevent mootness caused by remediation.
  3. If the ADA claims are mooted and dismissed, the court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
  4. When an ADA claim is mooted and dismissed before trial, the plaintiff is not entitled to attorney's fees under the circumstances described in the order.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the court should require the parties to report on investigation or remediation of alleged ADA barriers and their anticipated summary-judgment motions.
  2. Whether the plaintiff should show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims.
  3. Whether the plaintiff and counsel must provide declarations addressing the California high-frequency-litigant definition and the amount of statutory damages sought.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (10)

  • Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 905 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Am. Cargo Transp., Inc. v. United States, 625 F.3d 1176, 1179 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Hillesheim v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc., 953 F.3d 1059, 1062 (8th Cir. 2020)(followed)
  • G. v. Fay Sch., 931 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2019)(followed)
  • Brooke v. A-Ventures, LLC, 2017 WL 5624941, at *5 (D. Ariz. Nov. 22, 2017)(followed)
  • Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 911 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Hum. Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001)(followed)
  • Molski v. Foster Freeze Paso Robles, 267 F. App'x 631, 632 (9th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997)(followed)
  • Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…