Gastelum v. Tilly's, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 FERNANDO GASTELUM, Case No. 1:22-cv-00178-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL 14 TILLY’S, INC., JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIM, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 15 Defendant. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND, AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S UNRUH ACT

17 (Doc. 41) 18 19 On February 11, 2022, plaintiff Fernando Gastelum filed a complaint against defendant 20 Tilly’s, Inc.,1 alleging violations of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s 21 Unruh Civil Rights Act. Doc. 1. The claims stem from alleged barriers that plaintiff encountered 22 while visiting two facilities owned by defendant. Id. ¶¶ 3, 8–13. Following defendant’s filing of 23 a motion to dismiss, Doc. 6, the matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant 24 to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. See Doc. 34. 25 After the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to grant 26 defendant’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend and lodged a first 27 1 Defendant World of Jeans & Tops dba Tillys (“Defendant”) notes it is erroneously sued as Tilly’s, 28 Inc. Doc. 6 at 1. 1 | amended complaint. Docs. 37-38. On February 3, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge re-issued 2 | findings and recommendations to: (1) grant defendant’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the 3 | Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's Unruh Act claim; (2) 4 | deny plaintiff's motion for leave to amend; and (3) dismiss plaintiff's Unruh Act claim without 5 || prejudice to plaintiffs refiling of this claim in state court. Doc. 41. The findings and 6 || recommendations were served on all parties and provided the parties with 14 days to file 7 | objections. Jd. at 18. The findings and recommendations advised that the “failure to file 8 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d.) (citing 9 | Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)). No objections have been filed, and the 10 | time to do so has now passed. 11 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. 12 || Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the findings and 13 | recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 14 Accordingly: 15 1. The February 3, 2025, findings and recommendations, Doc. 41, are ADOPTED in 16 FULL; 17 2. The Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss, Doc. 6, and DECLINES to 18 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's Unruh Act claim pursuant to 28 19 US.C. § 1367(c)(4); 20 3. The Court DENIES plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, Doc. 38; and 21 4. Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim is DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiffs filing 22 of this claim in state court. 23 24 95 | IT ISSO ORDERED. _ 26 Dated: _ March 27, 2025 4h 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE