Darwin Boggs v. Tango Wholesale Tire Inc
5:25-cv-01500
| C.D. Cal. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- In this ADA action, Plaintiff Darwin Boggs alleges that defendant Tango Wholesale Tire Inc failed to comply with accessibility requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- The court emphasizes its policy of encouraging timely and efficient resolution of civil cases, particularly by encouraging the prompt removal of ADA barriers.
- The court notes that voluntary remediation by a defendant can moot ADA claims if barriers are removed and not reasonably expected to recur.
- The court reminds the parties that nominal damages are not available under Title III of the ADA, and attorney’s fees are not awarded if claims are mooted pre-trial.
- The court issues an Order to Show Cause (OSC) regarding whether it should retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims (like the Unruh Act claims) after possible dismissal of the ADA claim.
- Both parties are instructed to submit a joint status report; Plaintiff must also justify supplemental jurisdiction and clarify damages sought and litigant status under California law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness if barriers are remediated | Barriers remain; relief needed | Barriers removed, mooted claim | ADA claim may be dismissed if barriers remedied |
| Availability of nominal damages under ADA | Entitled to nominal damages | Nominal damages unavailable | Nominal damages are not recoverable under ADA |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims | Court should retain jurisdiction | Court should decline if ADA claims are moot | Court may decline jurisdiction if ADA claims are dismissed |
| Attorney’s fees if claim is mooted | Should be entitled to fees | No fees if claim is moot | Plaintiff not entitled to attorney’s fees if moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2011) (voluntary removal of ADA barriers can moot ADA claims and grounds for discretionary dismissal of supplemental state law claims)
- Am. Cargo Transp., Inc. v. United States, 625 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2010) (describes mootness principles in federal litigation)
- Hillesheim v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc., 953 F.3d 1059 (8th Cir. 2020) (nominal damages not available under Title III of the ADA)
- G. v. Fay Sch., 931 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019) (same holding regarding nominal damages under ADA)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dept. of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (no attorney’s fees where ADA claims rendered moot prior to judgment)