Gilbert v. Doctor's Choice Modesto LLC ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DARREN GILBERT, CASE NO. 1:21-CV-0690 AWI BAM 10 Plaintiff ORDER DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL 11 v. JURISDICTION 12 DOCTOR’S CHOICE MODESTO LLC, et al., (Doc. Nos. 118) 13 Defendants 14 15 16 This is a disabilities discrimination lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Darren Gilbert (“Gilbert”) 17 against inter alia Defendants Amar Kumar (“Kumar”), Shaibi Abdulqawi d/b/a J’s Smoke Shop 18 #9 (“Abdulqawi”), and Arif Faisal d/b/a Global Smoke Shop (“Faisal”) (collectively 19 “Defendants”). Defendants are pro se. The active complaint is the Third Amended Complaint 20 (“TAC”), which alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 1200 et. 21 seq.) (“ADA”), the California Unruh Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 51), and California Health & Safety 22 Code § 19955. On April 11, 2023, the Court issued an order to show cause why the Court should 23 not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gilbert’s two state law causes of action 24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022). See Doc. No. 25 118. The Court warned Gilbert that the failure to timely file a response to the order to show cause 26 would be construed as a non-opposition to the Court declining to exercise supplemental 27 jurisdiction over his state law claims. The time for responding has now passed, and Gilbert filed 28 no response of any kind. 1 Among other reasons, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 2 state law claims “in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining 3 jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). a court deciding whether to apply § 1367(c)(4) must make 4 “a two-part inquiry.” Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1210 (9th Cir. 2021). “First, the district court 5 must articulate why the circumstances of the case are exceptional within the meaning of § 6 1367(c)(4).” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “Second, in determining whether 7 there are compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction in a given case, the court should consider 8 what best serves the principles of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity which underlie the 9 pendent jurisdiction doctrine articulated in [United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 10 (1966)].” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 11 Here, with respect to the first prong, California has enacted various requirements that apply 12 to high frequency litigators who bring construction-related accessibility claims. See Cal. Code Civ. 13 P. § 450.5; Cal. Gov’t Code § 70616.5(b); see also Vo, 49 F.4th at 1169-70. If the Court were to 14 exercise jurisdiction over Gilbert’s Unruh Act and Health & Safety Code claims, Plaintiff would be 15 permitted to avoid these requirements. See Vo, 49 F.4th at 1170; Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1213; see also 16 Vo, 49 F.4th at 1172. Such avoidance would not be fair to the Defendants or to the public and would 17 be an affront to comity between federal and state courts. Vo, 49 F.4th at 1172; see Arroyo, 19 F.4th 18 at 1172. Because of the “unique configuration of laws” regarding construction-related accessibility 19 claims, there is “little doubt that the first prong [under § 1367(c)(4)] is satisfied here.” Id.; Arroyo, 20 19 F.4t h at 1212-13; see also Garcia v. Maciel, 2022 WL 395316, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2022) 21 (collecting cases). 22 With respect to the second prong, the Court considers the Gibbs values of economy, 23 convenience, fairness, and comity. Vo, 49 F.4th at 1171. This case remains at a relatively early 24 stage of litigation. The TAC was filed in November 2022 and included new claims. With the 25 filing of the TAC, new parties have appeared, which will necessitate new discovery and a 26 modified scheduling order. No motions for summary judgment have been filed and no motions 27 for default judgment have been granted or recommended to be granted. Further, as noted above, 28 there is nothing unfair about requiring a high frequency building/construction accessibility 1 | litigator to follow the particular state procedural rules for these state claims. Given the rationale 2 |that California utilized to implement these procedural rules, it furthers comity to decline 3 supplemental jurisdiction. Finally, Gilbert’s non-response constitutes a non-opposition. 4 | Therefore, the second prong is met. 5 Because the relevant consideration are all satisfied, the Court will decline to exercise 6 | supplemental jurisdiction over Gilbert’s state law claims pursuant to § 1367(c)(4) and Vo. 7 8 ORDER 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), the 10 |Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs California Civil Code and 11 | California Health & Safety Code claims, and those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: _April 21, 2023 — 7 Sz 7 Cb Lec — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28