Gastelum v. Tilly's, Inc.

Opinion

FERNANDO GASTELUM, Case No. 1:22-cv-00178-KES-CDB Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL TILLY’S, INC., JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIM, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Defendant. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND, AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S UNRUH ACT

(Doc. 41) On February 11, 2022, plaintiff Fernando Gastelum filed a complaint against defendant Tilly’s, Inc.,1 alleging violations of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Doc. 1. The claims stem from alleged barriers that plaintiff encountered while visiting two facilities owned by defendant. Id. ¶¶ 3, 8–13. Following defendant’s filing of a motion to dismiss, Doc. 6, the matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. See Doc. 34. After the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend and lodged a first 1 Defendant World of Jeans & Tops dba Tillys (“Defendant”) notes it is erroneously sued as Tilly’s, Inc. Doc. 6 at 1. amended complaint. Docs. 37-38. On February 3, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge re-issued findings and recommendations to: (1) grant defendant’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's Unruh Act claim; (2) deny plaintiff's motion for leave to amend; and (3) dismiss plaintiff's Unruh Act claim without prejudice to plaintiffs refiling of this claim in state court. Doc. 41. The findings and recommendations were served on all parties and provided the parties with 14 days to file objections. Jd. at 18. The findings and recommendations advised that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d.) (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)). No objections have been filed, and the time to do so has now passed. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly: 1. The February 3, 2025, findings and recommendations, Doc. 41, are ADOPTED in FULL; 2. The Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss, Doc. 6, and DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's Unruh Act claim pursuant to 28 US.C. § 1367(c)(4); 3. The Court DENIES plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, Doc. 38; and 4. Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim is DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiffs filing of this claim in state court. 95 IT ISSO ORDERED. _ Dated: _ March 27, 2025 4h 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE