Gilbert v. Castrejon ( 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-00319-ADA-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECLINING 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OF STATE LAW CLAIMS 14 GABRIEL CASTREJON dba El Marisquero, et al., (ECF No. 27) 15 Defendants. 16 17 On March 18, 2022, Plaintiff Darren Gilbert (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action alleging 18 violations of the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”) and related 19 state statutes. (ECF No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 20 to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On February 23, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file his First Amended Complaint 22 (“FAC”). (ECF No. 23.) The Plaintiff filed his FAC on February 24, 2023, asserting a claim for 23 injunctive relief arising out of alleged violations of the ADA and California Health and Safety 24 Codes and a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Act. (ECF No. 25.) Following an 25 order to show cause, on March 23, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and 26 recommendations, recommending that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 27 Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and that the claim be dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). (ECF No. 27.) The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff 1 | and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 2 | service. (Ud. at 7-8.) 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. 6 Accordingly, 7 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 23, 2023, (ECF No. 27), are 8 ADOPTED IN FULL; 9 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022), 10 the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act 11 claim and Plaintiff's California Health & Safety Codes §§ 19955, 19959 claims!: 12 and 13 3, Plaintiff's Unruh Act and California Health & Safety Codes §§ 19955, 19959 claims 14 are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); 15 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further 16 proceedings. 17 18 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: _ June 6, 2023 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 | | Plaintiffs California Health & Safety Code claims are subject to the same heightened pleading and filing requirements as his Unruh Act claim. See Gilbert v. Singh, No. 1:21cv1338-AWI-HBK, 2023 WL 2239335, 27 || *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2023). Therefore, the same considerations that apply against maintaining 38 supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Unruh Act claims apply to Plaintiff’s Health & Safety Code claims.