Cuevas v. Dela's Automotive Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA CUEVAS, Case No. 1:24-cv-01587-KES-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DECLINE 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS AND 14 DELA’S AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et al., TO DISMISS STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Defendants. Docs. 1, 8 16 17 18 19 On December 26, 2024, plaintiff Joshua Cuevas initiated this action with the filing of a 20 complaint against defendants Dela’s Automotive, Inc., doing business as Carquest Auto Parts, and 21 Johann G. Wernhart alleging violations of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), California’s 22 Unruh Civil Rights Act, and related state law causes of action. Doc. 1. These claims stem from 23 alleged barriers plaintiff encountered while visiting a facility owned, operated, or leased by 24 defendants. Id. at 3. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 25 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 26 On December 27, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to show cause why 27 the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Vo v. Choi. Doc. 5; Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 1 | 2022) (affirming a district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act 2 | claim); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). On January 10, 2025, plaintiff filed a response. Doc. 6. 3 After considering plaintiff's response, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 4 | recommendations on January 13, 2025 to (1) decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 5 | plaintiff's claims arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and (2) dismiss 6 | plaintiff's Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, Health & Safety Code, and negligence claims without 7 | prejudice to plaintiffs filing of these claims in state court. Doc. 8. The findings and 8 || recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to 9 | be filed within fourteen days after service. Jd. at 9. Plaintiff did not file any objections, and the 10 | deadline to do so has passed. 11 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 12 | novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the findings 13 | and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 14 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 15 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 13, 2025, Doc. 8, are 16 ADOPTED in full; 17 2. The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims 18 arising under state law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); and 19 3. Plaintiff's Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, Health & Safety Code, and negligence 20 claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff's filing of these claims in state 21 court. 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 4 fy Dated: _ February 14, 2025 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28