Escobedo v. El Rinconcito Mexican Grill, LLC

E.D. California

Escobedo v. El Rinconcito Mexican Grill, LLC

DecidedJanuary 6, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-01457

StatusUnknown

This text of Escobedo v. El Rinconcito Mexican Grill, LLC (Escobedo v. El Rinconcito Mexican Grill, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Escobedo v. El Rinconcito Mexican Grill, LLC, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 .0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE ESCOBEDO, Case No. 1:24-cv-1457 JLT SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECLINING 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS 14 EL RICONCITO MEXICAN GRILL, LLC, and FLIPSIDE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, (Doc. 6) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Jose Escobedo seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of Title III of the 18 Americans with Disabilities Act; California’s Unruh Act; and Health and Safety Code §§ 19955, 19 19959. (Doc. 1 at 5-9.) Following an order to show cause regarding jurisdiction (Doc. 4), the 20 assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending the Court 21 decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismiss the 22 claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). (Doc. 6.) 23 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff,1 and informed him that 24 any objections must be filed within 14 days of the date of service. (Doc. 6 at 7.) In addition, the 25 Court informed Plaintiff that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 26 waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 27 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has expired.

28 1 Defendants have not yet appeared in this action. 1 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of the case. 2 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 3 | are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 19, 2024 (Doc. 6) are 5 ADOPTED in full. 6 2. The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's 7 claims arising under California’s Unruh Act and Health & Safety Code. 8 3. Plaintiffs claims for violations of the Unruh Act and Cal. Health & Safety Code 9 § 19955 and § 19959 are DISMISSED without prejudice. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: _ January 5, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 .0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE ESCOBEDO, Case No. 1:24-cv-1457 JLT SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECLINING 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS 14 EL RICONCITO MEXICAN GRILL, LLC, and FLIPSIDE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, (Doc. 6) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Jose Escobedo seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of Title III of the 18 Americans with Disabilities Act; California’s Unruh Act; and Health and Safety Code §§ 19955, 19 19959. (Doc. 1 at 5-9.) Following an order to show cause regarding jurisdiction (Doc. 4), the 20 assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending the Court 21 decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismiss the 22 claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). (Doc. 6.) 23 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff,1 and informed him that 24 any objections must be filed within 14 days of the date of service. (Doc. 6 at 7.) In addition, the 25 Court informed Plaintiff that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 26 waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 27 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has expired.

28 1 Defendants have not yet appeared in this action. 1 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of the case. 2 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 3 | are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 19, 2024 (Doc. 6) are 5 ADOPTED in full. 6 2. The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's 7 claims arising under California’s Unruh Act and Health & Safety Code. 8 3. Plaintiffs claims for violations of the Unruh Act and Cal. Health & Safety Code 9 § 19955 and § 19959 are DISMISSED without prejudice. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: _ January 5, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Escobedo v. El Rinconcito Mexican Grill, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/escobedo-v-el-rinconcito-mexican-grill-llc-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack