Gilbert v. Akhnana ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARREN GILBERT, Case No. 1:22-cv-00876-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 EDWARD Y. AKHNANA, Trustee of the AKHNANA FAMILY 2012 15 REVOCABLE TRUST, dba E & J KWIK SERV; JAMILA Y. AKHNANA, Trustee 16 of the AKHNANA FAMILY 2012 REVOCABLE TRUST, dba E & J KWIK 17 SERV, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Plaintiff Darren Gilbert seeks to hold the Defendants liable for violations of Title III of the 21 American, the California Unruh Act, and California Health and Safety Code §§ 19955, 19959. 22 ECF No. 1. Following an order to show cause regarding jurisdiction, the assigned magistrate 23 judge issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending the Court decline to exercise 24 supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismiss the claims without 25 prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). ECF No. 13. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// ] The Findings and Recommendations were served on plaintiff! on August 16, 2023. 2 | Plaintiff was informed any objection must be filed within 14 days of the date of service. (/d. at 7- 3 || 8). In addition, plaintiff was informed the “failure to file objections within the specified time may 4 | result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” /d. (citing Wilkerson v. Wheller, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 5 || (Oth Cir. 2014)). No objections were filed and the time to do so has expired. 6 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 7 || 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 8 | denovo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 9 || by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 10 | ....”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 11 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 12 Thus, the Court ORDERS: 13 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 16, 2023 (Doc. No. 13) are 14 ADOPTED in full. 15 2. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims arising 16 under California’s Unruh Act and Health & Safety Code. 17 3. Plaintiffs claims for violations of the Unruh Act and Cal. Health & Safety Code 18 § 19955 and § 19959 are DISMISSED without prejudice. 19 4. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 20 | DATED: September 25, 2023. 21 22 eee 33 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 | ' Defendants have not appeared in this action and default was entered by the Clerk of Court. (Doc. No. 7).