Trujillo v. Chaudhary ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE TRUJILLO, No. 1:22-cv-00969-ADA-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECLINING 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER STATE LAW CLAIMS AND DENYING 14 HARBIR CHAUDHARY, individually and MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT dba 99 Food Market & Gasoline, et al., WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 11, 16) 16 17 Plaintiff Jose Trujillo (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action on August 3, 2022, against 18 Defendants Harbir Chaudhary and Ved Vati Chaudhary (aka Ved Vati Rana), both individually and 19 doing business as 99 Food Market & Gasoline (“Defendants”), alleging claims under the American 20 with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), and 21 California’s Health and Safety Code. (ECF No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States 22 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On April 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against all Defendants. 24 (ECF No. 11.) Following an order to show cause, on May 10, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge 25 issued findings and recommendations, recommending that the Court decline to exercise 26 supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and that those claims be dismissed, 27 without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). (ECF No. 16.) The findings and 28 recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to 1 | be filed within fourteen days after service. (Ud. at 7.) No objections have been filed, and the time 2 | 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 May 10, 2023, (ECF No. 16), 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 11 Act claim and Plaintiff's Cal. Health & Safety Codes §§ 19955 and 19959 claims; 12 3, Plaintiff's Unruh Act and Cal. Health & Safety Codes §§ 19955 and 19959 claims 13 are DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); 14 4. Plaintiffs pending motion for default judgment, (ECF No. 11), is DENIED, without 15 prejudice, subject to being renewed as to the remaining claim under the Americans 16 with Disabilities Act; and 17 5. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 18 19 29 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: _ July 13, 2023 0 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28