Cuevas v. Feghali Foods

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-01581-KES-CDB

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