Cuevas v. Abdo

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 17, 2025·No. 1:24-cv-01515·Unknown

Opinion

JOSHUA CUEVAS, Case No. 1:24-cv-01515 JLT CDB

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECLINING v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS ABDO, et al., (Doc. 7) Defendants. Joshua Cuevas seeks to hold the defendants— Al Rowhanni Salahaldeen Abdo, doing business as Salah’s Store, and Abdo Alrowhany—liable for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, Plaintiff asserts several claims arising under state law, including: California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, Health and Safety Code, and negligence. (Doc. 1.) Following an order to show cause regarding jurisdiction (Doc. 5), the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismiss the claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). (Doc. 7.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff1 and informed him that any objections must be filed within 14 days of the date of service. (Doc. 7 at 9.) The Court advised him that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-839 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has expired. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated January 2, 2025 (Doc. 7) are ADOPTED in full. 2. The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). 3, Plaintiffs claims for violations of the Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code, and negligence claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. B IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ January 17, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cuevas v. Abdo, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Cuevas v. Abdo (Cuevas v. Abdo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

J. Wilkerson v. B. Wheeler
772 F.3d 834 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)