1 2 3
6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 JOSE ESCOBEDO, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-0390 JLT SAB ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN PART THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN 13 v. ) PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT ) JUDGMENT, DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 14 BELSSINGS-CO, INC., et al., ) STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ) AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 15 Defendants. ) CLOSE THE CASE ) 16 ) (Docs. 13, 18) ) 17
18 Jose Escobedo seeks default judgment against the defendants—including Blessing-Co, Inc; 19 Xiaohong Chen dba Moy’s Restaurant; Han Hong Li dba Moy’s Restaurant; Golden Tripod Restaurant 20 Group, LLC dba Noodle Q; and Golden Tripod Restaurant, LLC dba Noodle Q— for violating Title III 21 of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. (See Docs. 1, 13.) For 22 the reasons set forth below, the motion for default judgment is granted in part. The Court finds default 23 judgment is appropriate for the claim arising under the ADA, but declines to exercise supplemental 24 jurisdiction and dismisses claims arising under state law without prejudice. 25 I. Relevant Background 26 Escobedo reports that he “suffers from rheumatoid arthritis which impairs his ability to move 27 his joints without pain, is substantially limited in his ability to walk requiring a cane for mobility, and 28 has limited dexterity due to arthritis and finger amputation.” (Doc. 1 at 3, ¶ 8.) He asserts that he 1 visited Moy’s Restaurant on June 14, 2023, and Noodle Q on June 15, 2023, intending to dine at the 2 facilities that are “less than ten miles” from his residence. (Id. at 3, ¶ 10.) Escobedo alleges he 3 “personally encountered barriers (both physical and intangible) that interfered with, if not outright 4 denied, [his] ability to use and enjoy the goods, services, privileges and accommodations offered” at the 5 facilities. (Id.; see also id. at 3-5.) Escobedo asserts that he “was, and continues to be, deterred from 6 visiting” the dining facilities because he knows the “goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, 7 and accommodations were and are unavailable to [him] due to [his] physical disabilities.” (Id. at 6, ¶ 8 12.) According to Escobedo, he will return to Moy’s Restaurant and Noodle Q “once the barriers are 9 removed” because he “enjoys the goods and services offered.” (Id.) Escobedo asserts Defendants 10 “possessed and enjoyed sufficient control and authority” to remove the barriers, and to be sure the 11 facilities complied with the 1991 ADA Accessibility Guidelines and/or the 2010 ADA Standards for 12 Accessible Design. (Id., ¶ 14.) Escobedo also contends, “Defendants have the financial resources to 13 remove the[] barriers …without much difficulty or expense[], and make the Facilities accessible to the 14 physically disabled.” (Id. at 5-6, ¶ 13.) 15 On April 3, 2024, Escobedo initiated this action by filing a complaint against Defendants 16 alleging: (1) violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, (2) violations of California’s 17 Unruh Act, and (3) denial of full and equal access to public facilities under California’s Health and 18 Safety Code. (Doc. 1 at 6-10.) Escobedo served the defendants with the summons and complaint. 19 (Docs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.) After Defendants failed to respond to the complaint, Escobedo requested entry of 20 default. (Doc. 10.) The Clerk of Court entered default against all defendants on May 9, 2024. (Doc. 21 11.) Escobedo now seeks default judgment, requesting injunctive and declaratory relief, statutory 22 damages under the Unruh Act, attorneys’ fees, and costs.1 (Doc. 13.) 23 II. Findings and Recommendations 24 As an initial matter, the magistrate judge determined the Court has original jurisdiction over the 25 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, based upon Escobedo’s claim for violations of the ADA. (Doc. 18 26 at 7.) In addition, the magistrate judge noted that the Court “has the discretion to exercise supplemental 27
28 1 Escobedo did not seek default judgment for his claim for the denial of full and equal access to public facilities arising 1 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for Plaintiff’s related state law claims pursuant to the Unruh Act, 2 California Civil Code §§ 51, et seq.,” and recommended “exercising supplemental jurisdiction over 3 Plaintiff’s claim under the Unruh Act.” (Id.) 4 The magistrate judge evaluated the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit in Eitel v. McCool, 782 5 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986), and found the factors weighed in favor of granting the motion for 6 default judgment. (Doc. 18 at 11-21.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found default judgment was 7 appropriate for Escobedo’s claim arising under the ADA, and recommended the requested injunctive 8 relief be granted. (Id. at 12-16.) The magistrate judge also found default judgment was appropriate for 9 the claim arising under the Unruh Act, and recommended awarding statutory damages in the amount of 10 $8,000.00. (Id. at 17-18, 25.) Finally, the magistrate judge recommended Escobedo be awarded 11 attorneys’ fees in the modified amount of $2,610.0 and litigation expenses and costs in the amount of 12 $871.44, for a total of $3,481.44. (Id. at 21-25.) 13 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on November 21, 2024, and informed the 14 parties that any objections must be filed within 14 days. (Doc. 18 at 26.) In addition, the Court advised 15 the parties that “the failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 16 on appeal.” (Id. at 26-27, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) No 17 objections were filed, and the time to do so expired. 18 III. Supplemental Jurisdiction 19 Significantly, while noting the Court could take supplemental jurisdiction, the magistrate judge 20 did not make any findings as to whether exceptional circumstances exist to decline jurisdiction over 21 Escobedo’s claims arising under California law. As the magistrate judge observed, a court that has 22 original jurisdiction over a civil action “shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that 23 are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same 24 case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). State 25 claims are part of the same case or controversy as federal claims “when they derive from a common 26 nucleus of operative fact and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them in one 27 judicial proceeding.” Kuba v. 1-A Agric. Assoc., 387 F.3d 850, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal 28 quotation marks, citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit concluded ADA and Unruh Act claims that 1 derive from a common nucleus of facts “form part of the ‘same case or controversy/ for purposes of § 2 1367(a).” Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1209 (9th Cir. 2021). 3 Supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right” and district courts 4 “can decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent claims for a number of valid reasons.” City of 5 Chicago v. Int’l College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172 (1997) (internal quotation marks, citations 6 omitted).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3
6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 JOSE ESCOBEDO, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-0390 JLT SAB ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN PART THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN 13 v. ) PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT ) JUDGMENT, DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 14 BELSSINGS-CO, INC., et al., ) STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ) AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 15 Defendants. ) CLOSE THE CASE ) 16 ) (Docs. 13, 18) ) 17
18 Jose Escobedo seeks default judgment against the defendants—including Blessing-Co, Inc; 19 Xiaohong Chen dba Moy’s Restaurant; Han Hong Li dba Moy’s Restaurant; Golden Tripod Restaurant 20 Group, LLC dba Noodle Q; and Golden Tripod Restaurant, LLC dba Noodle Q— for violating Title III 21 of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. (See Docs. 1, 13.) For 22 the reasons set forth below, the motion for default judgment is granted in part. The Court finds default 23 judgment is appropriate for the claim arising under the ADA, but declines to exercise supplemental 24 jurisdiction and dismisses claims arising under state law without prejudice. 25 I. Relevant Background 26 Escobedo reports that he “suffers from rheumatoid arthritis which impairs his ability to move 27 his joints without pain, is substantially limited in his ability to walk requiring a cane for mobility, and 28 has limited dexterity due to arthritis and finger amputation.” (Doc. 1 at 3, ¶ 8.) He asserts that he 1 visited Moy’s Restaurant on June 14, 2023, and Noodle Q on June 15, 2023, intending to dine at the 2 facilities that are “less than ten miles” from his residence. (Id. at 3, ¶ 10.) Escobedo alleges he 3 “personally encountered barriers (both physical and intangible) that interfered with, if not outright 4 denied, [his] ability to use and enjoy the goods, services, privileges and accommodations offered” at the 5 facilities. (Id.; see also id. at 3-5.) Escobedo asserts that he “was, and continues to be, deterred from 6 visiting” the dining facilities because he knows the “goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, 7 and accommodations were and are unavailable to [him] due to [his] physical disabilities.” (Id. at 6, ¶ 8 12.) According to Escobedo, he will return to Moy’s Restaurant and Noodle Q “once the barriers are 9 removed” because he “enjoys the goods and services offered.” (Id.) Escobedo asserts Defendants 10 “possessed and enjoyed sufficient control and authority” to remove the barriers, and to be sure the 11 facilities complied with the 1991 ADA Accessibility Guidelines and/or the 2010 ADA Standards for 12 Accessible Design. (Id., ¶ 14.) Escobedo also contends, “Defendants have the financial resources to 13 remove the[] barriers …without much difficulty or expense[], and make the Facilities accessible to the 14 physically disabled.” (Id. at 5-6, ¶ 13.) 15 On April 3, 2024, Escobedo initiated this action by filing a complaint against Defendants 16 alleging: (1) violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, (2) violations of California’s 17 Unruh Act, and (3) denial of full and equal access to public facilities under California’s Health and 18 Safety Code. (Doc. 1 at 6-10.) Escobedo served the defendants with the summons and complaint. 19 (Docs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.) After Defendants failed to respond to the complaint, Escobedo requested entry of 20 default. (Doc. 10.) The Clerk of Court entered default against all defendants on May 9, 2024. (Doc. 21 11.) Escobedo now seeks default judgment, requesting injunctive and declaratory relief, statutory 22 damages under the Unruh Act, attorneys’ fees, and costs.1 (Doc. 13.) 23 II. Findings and Recommendations 24 As an initial matter, the magistrate judge determined the Court has original jurisdiction over the 25 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, based upon Escobedo’s claim for violations of the ADA. (Doc. 18 26 at 7.) In addition, the magistrate judge noted that the Court “has the discretion to exercise supplemental 27
28 1 Escobedo did not seek default judgment for his claim for the denial of full and equal access to public facilities arising 1 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for Plaintiff’s related state law claims pursuant to the Unruh Act, 2 California Civil Code §§ 51, et seq.,” and recommended “exercising supplemental jurisdiction over 3 Plaintiff’s claim under the Unruh Act.” (Id.) 4 The magistrate judge evaluated the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit in Eitel v. McCool, 782 5 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986), and found the factors weighed in favor of granting the motion for 6 default judgment. (Doc. 18 at 11-21.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found default judgment was 7 appropriate for Escobedo’s claim arising under the ADA, and recommended the requested injunctive 8 relief be granted. (Id. at 12-16.) The magistrate judge also found default judgment was appropriate for 9 the claim arising under the Unruh Act, and recommended awarding statutory damages in the amount of 10 $8,000.00. (Id. at 17-18, 25.) Finally, the magistrate judge recommended Escobedo be awarded 11 attorneys’ fees in the modified amount of $2,610.0 and litigation expenses and costs in the amount of 12 $871.44, for a total of $3,481.44. (Id. at 21-25.) 13 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on November 21, 2024, and informed the 14 parties that any objections must be filed within 14 days. (Doc. 18 at 26.) In addition, the Court advised 15 the parties that “the failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 16 on appeal.” (Id. at 26-27, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) No 17 objections were filed, and the time to do so expired. 18 III. Supplemental Jurisdiction 19 Significantly, while noting the Court could take supplemental jurisdiction, the magistrate judge 20 did not make any findings as to whether exceptional circumstances exist to decline jurisdiction over 21 Escobedo’s claims arising under California law. As the magistrate judge observed, a court that has 22 original jurisdiction over a civil action “shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that 23 are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same 24 case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). State 25 claims are part of the same case or controversy as federal claims “when they derive from a common 26 nucleus of operative fact and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them in one 27 judicial proceeding.” Kuba v. 1-A Agric. Assoc., 387 F.3d 850, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal 28 quotation marks, citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit concluded ADA and Unruh Act claims that 1 derive from a common nucleus of facts “form part of the ‘same case or controversy/ for purposes of § 2 1367(a).” Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1209 (9th Cir. 2021). 3 Supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right” and district courts 4 “can decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent claims for a number of valid reasons.” City of 5 Chicago v. Int’l College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172 (1997) (internal quotation marks, citations 6 omitted). A district court may “decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if: 7 (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district 8 court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, 9 there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
10 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). This provision is “a codification of the principles of economy, convenience, 11 fairness, and comity that underlie the Supreme Court’s earlier jurisprudence concerning pendent 12 jurisdiction.” Whitaker v. Mac, 411 F.Supp.3d 1108, 1113 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (citing Int’l Coll. of 13 Surgeons, 522 U.S. at 172-73; see also United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) 14 (identifying the following as relevant factors: judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, 15 which together are the “Gibbs values”). 16 The Ninth Circuit does not require an “explanation for a district court’s reasons [for declining 17 supplemental jurisdiction] when the district court acts under the first three provisions.” San Pedro 18 Hotel Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470, 478 (9th Cir. 1998). However, the Court is required to 19 identify why circumstances may be “exceptional” if declining jurisdiction under Section 1367(c)(4). 20 Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1210. “A district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state- 21 law claim is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167, 1171-72 (9th Cir. 2022). 22 A. Jurisdiction under Section 1367(c)(4) 23 A court’s inquiry as to whether decline jurisdiction under Section 1367(c)(4) involves a two- 24 part inquiry. Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1210. First, the Court must identify “why the circumstances of the 25 case are exceptional within the meaning of § 1367(c)(4).” Id. (citation omitted); see also San Pedro 26 Hotel, 159 F.3d at 478-79. Second, to evaluate if “there are ‘compelling reasons for declining 27 jurisdiction’ in a given case, the court should consider what ‘best serves the principles of economy, 28 convenience, fairness, and comity which underlie the pendent jurisdiction doctrine’ articulated in 1 Gibbs.” Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1210 (citing Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. at 172-73). These “inquiries 2 are not particularly burdensome.” Id. (citation omitted.) 3 1. Exceptional circumstances 4 Importantly, “California adopted heightened pleading requirements for Unruh Act accessibility 5 claims in an attempt to deter baseless claims and vexatious litigation” in 2012. Machowski v. 6 Auburndale Props., 574 F.Supp.3d 776, 779 (C.D. Cal. 2021); see also Vo, 49 F.4th at 1170 (noting the 7 state “imposed heightened pleading requirements” following the abuse of remedies under the Unruh 8 Act). The state adopted further restrictions in 2015, after the heightened pleading requirements alone 9 “did not substantially reduce vexatious filings.” Id. (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50). The state 10 targeted “high-frequency litigants,” which include plaintiffs who “filed 10 or more complaints alleging 11 a construction-related accessibility violation within the 12-month period immediately preceding the 12 filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation.” Cal. Code Civ. 13 Proc. § 425.55(b)(1). The Court’s review of its records indicates that Escobedo would be subject to the 14 heightened pleading and procedural standards that now apply to the high-frequency litigants.2 15 Under California law, high-frequency litigants—such as Escobedo—are now required to 16 comply with the following requirements: 17 (1) the complaint must allege whether it is filed by or on behalf of a high- frequency litigator; (2) the number of complaints alleging a construction 18 related accessibility claim that were filed by the high frequency litigator in the past twelve months; (3) the reason the high frequency litigator was 19 in the region of the defendant’s business; and (4) the specific reason that the high frequency litigator desired access to the defendant’s business. 20 21 2 Based upon the Court’s review of its records, Escobedo filed 17 disability access actions in the 12 months immediately 22 the filing of this action on April 3, 2024, including: Escobedo v. Clovis Tire & Wheelers, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-1170-SAB (filed Aug. 4, 2023); Escobedo v. Vallarta Food Enterprises, Case No. 1:23-cv-1203 (filed Aug.11, 2023); Escobedo v. De 23 Anda Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-1275 (filed Aug. 24, 2023); Escobedo v. G & T Entertainment, Case No. 1:23-cv-1280-EPG (filed Aug. 25, 2023); Escobedo v. Fried or Boiled Seafood Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-1281-ADA-SAB (filed Aug. 25, 2023); 24 Escobedo v. Singh, 1:23-cv-1302-KES-BAM (filed Aug. 31, 2023); Escobedo v. Los Amigos Authentic Mexican Food, Case No. 1:23-cv-1306-SAB (filed Aug. 31, 2023); Escobedo v. Northwood Enters. L.P., Case No. 1:23-cv-1338-JLT-SAB 25 (filed Sept. 8, 2023); Escobedo v. Northern Village Associates LP, Case No. 1:23-cv-1364-JLT-SAB (filed Sept. 15, 2023); Escobedo v. Tacos y Tortas Chalio LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-1338-SAB (filed Sept. 22, 2023); Escobedo v. Gazebo Gardens, 26 Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-1390-SAB (filed Sept. 22, 2023); Escobedo v. 1313 Restaurant Group, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv- 1425-JLT-BAM (filed Sept. 29, 2023); Escobedo v. Giganova, L.P., Case No. 1:23-cv-1627-JLT-SKO (filed Nov. 17, 27 2023); Escobedo v. Jensen & Pilegard, Case No. 1:24-cv-0088-KES-SKO (filed Jan 18, 2024); Escobedo v. Zamorano, Case No. 1:24-cv-0339-JLT-HBK (filed Mar. 22, 2024); Escobedo v. Mariscos El Pescador Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-0359- 28 JLT-EPG (filed Mar. 27, 2024); Escobedo v. Solano, Case No. 1:24-cv-0373-KES-SKO (filed Apr. 1, 2024). 1 Machowski, 574 F.Supp.3d at 779 (citation omitted, modifications adopted); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. 2 Code § 425.50(a)(4)(A)). The high-frequency litigants must also pay an additional $1,000 filing fee. 3 Cal. Gov't. Code § 70616.5(a), (b). Importantly, these additional requirements apply only in the state 4 court, and “plaintiffs can circumvent the restrictions on high-frequency litigants by filing their 5 complaints in federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction over the ADA claim and 6 supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.” Shayler v. 1310 PCH, LLC, 51 F.4th 1015, 1018 7 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1207); see also Vo, 49 F.4th at 1170 (“we assume ... these 8 new requirements apply only in California state court”). 9 The Ninth Circuit—and district courts within the circuit—recognized an increase in disability 10 access claims brought in federal court by the “high-frequency litigants” who would be subject to the 11 additional requirements before the state. See, e.g., Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1211; Shayler, 51 F.4th at 1017- 12 18 (observing that in the Central District alone, “the number of ADA cases has ballooned from 3 13 percent of its civil docket to roughly 20 percent in recent years”); Gilbert v. Bonfare Markets, Inc., 14 2023 WL 1803398, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2023) (noting “the burden the ever-increasing number of 15 [accessibility] cases poses to the federal courts”); Arroyo v. Quach, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16 18721, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2023) (“California federal courts have recently experienced a large 17 influx of cases involving a federal claim under the ADA for failure to ensure that businesses are 18 accessible to customers with disabilities, accompanied by a state-law claim under the Unruh Act”) 19 (citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit attributed this increase to Unruh Act plaintiffs who sought to 20 avoid the California requirements, “by filing in a federal forum in which [they] can claim these state 21 law damages in a manner inconsistent with the state law’s requirements.” Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1211. 22 As a result, the Ninth Circuit opined that “the procedural strictures that California put in place have 23 been rendered largely toothless...” Id. 24 Having acknowledged the apparent avoidance by litigants who pursue their state claims in 25 federal courts, the Ninth Circuit had “little difficulty” reaching the conclusion that “the legal 26 landscape” concerning Unruh Act cases constitutes an exceptional circumstance within the meaning of 27 Section 1367(c)(4). Vo, 49 F.4th at 1169 (citing Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1214). Thus, numerous district 28 courts in California “have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act … claims 1 brought alongside ADA claims.” Rutherford v. Nuway Ins. Agency Inc., 2021 WL 4572008, at *1 2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2021). 3 2. Compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction 4 The Court finds the Gibbs values of judicial economy and convenience weigh in favor of 5 declining supplemental jurisdiction. Although the Court addressed the merits of the ADA claim to the 6 extent necessary to address the motion for default judgment, it has not been required to expend a 7 significant amount of time and resources on the action as the claims were uncontested. See Whitaker 8 v. Eye Phone City, 2020 WL 7065831, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2020) (finding judicial economy did 9 not weigh in favor of supplemental jurisdiction where the parties had not yet engaged in discovery); 10 see also Brooke v. Shelby Hosp. LLC., 2023 WL 5017996, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2023) (declining 11 supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the state law claims when addressing a motion for default 12 judgment brought by a high-frequency litigant, finding any concerns of judicial economy were 13 outweighed by concerns of comity). Moreover, any inefficiencies created by the Court’s decision to 14 decline supplemental jurisdiction “are problems ultimately that resulted from [the] plaintiff’s decision 15 to file this [a]ction in federal, rather than state court.” See Whitaker v. Aftaliion, 2020 WL 5845724, at 16 *4 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2020). 17 Fairness also weighs in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. 18 Escobedo has not been prevented from receiving injunctive relief to remove the encountered 19 accessibility barriers—the only relief available—under his ADA claim before the federal court. On the 20 other hand, it would be unfair to permit Escobedo to evade the limitations California imposed on his 21 accessibility claims. See Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1031 (S.D. Cal. 2017); see also 22 Brooke v. Yang & Chang Int’l, 2024 WL 4003180, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2024) (finding fairness 23 weighed in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction because “permitting a plaintiff to pursue 24 construction-related accessibility claims in this Court while evading the limitations California has 25 imposed on such claims is unfair to defendants”). 26 Finally, comity weighs in favor of declining jurisdiction, particularly in light of the state’s 27 efforts to thwart abuse of the legal system through the filing of unverified disability access claims. See, 28 e.g., Marquez v. KBMS Hospitality Corp., 492 F. Supp. 3d 1058, 1064 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (“To allow 1 federal courts to become an escape hatch that allows high-frequency litigants to pursue such claims 2 without satisfying California’s requirements is an affront to the comity between federal and state 3 courts”); Block v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 2024 WL 333891, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2024) (comity weighed in 4 favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction, because permitting the plaintiff to proceed before the 5 district court would permit evasion of requirements imposed by the California legislature); Schutza v. 6 Alessio Leasing, Inc., 2019 WL 1546950, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2019) (“By being ‘inefficient’ and 7 declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction …, this Court is simply recognizing that California has a 8 strong interest in interpreting and enforcing its own rules without federal courts serving as a convenient 9 end-around for creative litigants. If that results in occasional inefficiency, it’s a worthwhile tradeoff.”). 10 IV. Conclusion and Order 11 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court performed a de novo review of this case. 12 Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 13 are supported by the record and by proper analysis related to Escobedo’s claim under the ADA. The 14 recommended reduction to the award of fees and costs is also appropriate. However, as described 15 above, there are “exceptional circumstances” and “compelling reasons” to decline supplemental 16 jurisdiction over Escobedo’s claims for violations of the Unruh Act and California Health & Safety 17 Code. Accordingly, the Court declines to adopt the recommendations related to the claims arising 18 under state law, and exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction. Based upon the 19 foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 20 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on November 21, 2024 (Doc. 18) are 21 ADOPTED in part. 22 2. The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims 23 arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). 24 3. Plaintiff’s claims for violations of the Unruh Act and the California Health & Safety 25 Code are DISMISSED without prejudice. 26 4. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 13) is GRANTED IN PART. 27 5. Judgment SHALL be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants. 28 6. Plaintiff’s request for statutory damages under California’s Unruh Act is DENIED. 1 7. Plaintiff’s request for fees, costs, and expenses is GRANTED IN PART, in the 2 modified amount of $3,481.44. 3 8. Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief under the ADA is GRANTED. 4 9. Defendants Blessing-Co, Chen, and Li SHALL make modifications within six months 5 to the facility known as “Moy’s Restaurant,” located at 2636 East Ashlan Avenue, 6 Fresno, California 93726, to bring the property into compliance with the accessibility 7 requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act as follows: 8 a. Providing a properly configured entrance door, including sweep time; 9 b. Providing a door to the men’s restroom with a properly configured door knob; 10 c. Providing a properly configured locking mechanism on the door to the toilet 11 compartment; 12 d. Providing a properly configured toilet in the men’s restroom toilet compartment; 13 e. Providing a properly placed toilet seat cover dispenser in the men’s restroom 14 toilet compartment; 15 f. Providing a properly placed toilet paper dispenser in the men’s restroom toilet 16 compartment; 17 g. Providing properly configured faucet controls on the sink in the men’s restroom; 18 h. Providing a properly placed paper towel dispenser in the men’s restroom; and 19 i. Providing a properly configured transaction counter that is unobstructed. 20 10. Defendants Blessing-Co, Inc., Golden Tripod Restaurant Group, LLC, and Golden 21 Tripod Restaurant, LLC, SHALL make modifications within six months to the facility 22 known as “Noodle Q,” located at 2648 East Ashlan Avenue, Fresno, California 93726, 23 to bring the property into compliance with the accessibility requirements of the 24 Americans with Disabilities Act as follows: 25 a. Providing properly secured floor mats in the facility; 26 b. Providing a door to the men’s restroom that is properly configured as to weight 27 and sweep time; 28 c. Providing a properly configured locking mechanism on the toilet compartment 1 in the men’s restroom; 2 d. Providing a properly placed toilet within the toilet compartment in the men’s 3 restroom; 4 e. Providing a properly placed toilet seat cover dispenser in the toilet compartmet 5 in the men’s restroom; and 6 f. Providing a properly placed soap and paper towel dispenser in the men’s 7 restroom. 8 11. The Clerk of Court shall terminate any pending motions and close this case. 9 10 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ December 12, 2024 ( Lint u pA | . | WY) h \ 12 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28