Gilbert v. Samra ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARREN GILBERT, No. 1:22-cv-00552-ADA-BAM 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DECLINING 14 HARKIRAT SINGH SAMRA dba BILL’S SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND SPORT & BAIT SHOP, et al., DISMISSING STATE LAW CLAIMS 15 WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants. 16 (ECF No. 25) 17 18 Plaintiff Darren Gilbert (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action on May 6, 2022, asserting claims 19 for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and the California 20 Health and Safety Code and claims for statutory damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights 21 Act (“Unruh Act”). (ECF No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On March 15, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, 24 recommending as follows: (1) the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 25 Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim, California Health and Safety Code claim, and any other state law 26 construction-related accessibility claim; and (2) that Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim, California Health 27 and Safety Code claim, and any other state law construction-related accessibility claim be dismissed 28 without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). (ECF No. 25.) The findings and 1 || recommendations contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days 2 | after service. Ud. at 7.) No objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has passed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a 4 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 5 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. See Vo v. Choi, 49 6 | F.4th 1167, 1174 (9th Cir. 2022) (upholding a district court’s invocation of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) 7 | to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over accessibility related Unruh Act claims); 8 | Gilbert v. Singh, No. 1:21-cv-01338-AWI-HBK, 2023 WL 2239335, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2023) 9 | (noting that a plaintiffs claims under “Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 19955 and 19959 are 10 | ‘construction-related accessibility claims’ that are subject to the same pleading and filing 11 | requirements as Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim.”). 12 Accordingly, 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 15, 2023, (ECF No. 25), are 14 ADOPTED in full; 15 2. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act 16 claim, California Health and Safety Code claim, and any other state law 17 construction-related accessibility claim; and 18 3, Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim, California Health and Safety Code claim, and any other 19 state law construction-related accessibility claim are DISMISSED without 20 prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). 21 22 93 | SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: _ June 6, 2023 35 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28