Gilbert Salinas v. Laguna Beach Golf and Bungalow Village, LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: April 14, 2021
• Docket: 8:21-cv-00419
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

JS-6 FILED 1 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

3 Movs CW__pnrory 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SOUTHERN DIVISION 10 || GILBERT SALINAS, Case No.: SACV 21-00419-CJC (JDEx) Plaintiff, 13 y ORDER DECLINING ° SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION 14 AND SUA SPONTE REMANDING CASE TO ORANGE COUNTY 15 || LAGUNA BEACH GOLF AND SUPERIOR COURT 16 || BUNGALOW VILLAGE, LLC AND DOES 1-10, 17 18 Defendant. 19 20 2X 22 23 On January 27, 2021, Plaintiff Gilbert Salinas filed the instant lawsuit in Orange 24 || County Superior Court against Defendant Long Beach Golf and Bungalow Village, LLC, 25 || alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California’s 26 || Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”). (Dkt. 1 Ex. 1 [Complaint].) Defendant 27 || subsequently removed the case to this Court based on the federal question posed by 28 || Plaintiff's ADA claim. (Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal].)

1 On April 3, 2021, Plaintiff amended his Complaint and dropped the ADA claim, 2 || the sole federal claim, leaving only state law claims for violations of the Unruh Act and 3 || California’s Unfair Competition Law. (Dkts. 11-12.) Asa result, the Court ordered 4 || Defendant to show cause as to why the Court should not decline supplemental 5 jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and remand the case. (Dkt. 16.) 6 || Defendant failed to submit its response by the April 12, 2021 deadline. (See id.) Plaintifi 7 || filed his own response requesting the Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his 8 || state law claims. (Dkt. 15 [hereinafter “P. Resp.”].) It appears, however, that neither 9 || Plaintiff nor his counsel read the Court’s order to show cause and, instead, filed a 10 || boilerplate response to a non-existent “request for information regarding if Plaintiff is a 11 || ‘High Frequency Litigant.’” (/d. at 6.) The Court made no such request in this case. 12 13 Here, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why it should not remand the 14 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which permits a district court to decline 15 “supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . [if] the district court has dismissed all claims 16 || over which it has original jurisdiction.” Plaintiff does not address 28 U.S.C. 17 || § 1367(c)(3), but instead argues that exceptional circumstances, under 28 U.S.C. 18 || § 1367(c)(4), do not exist. (P. Resp. at 10.) This argument is irrelevant. 19 20 Because Plaintiff filed an amended complaint which eliminated his sole federal 21 ||claim, the cause of action on which the Court’s original jurisdiction rested is now gone. 22 || See Horne v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 969 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1209 (C.D. Cal. 2013). 23 ||“Under § 1367(c)(3), therefore, the [C]ourt can properly exercise its discretion to remand 24 ||the supplemental state law claims.” /d. at 1209-10. In exercising this discretion, courts 25 || are instructed to consider the factors of “judicial economy, convenience and fairness to 26 || litigants.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). These 27 || factors weigh strongly in favor of remand where all federal claims are dismissed before 28 || trial. See Horne, 969 F. Supp. 2d at 1207-08, 1210; see also Millar v. Bay Area Rapid

1 || Transit Dist., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (noting that “[t]he factor of 2 |}comity also weighs strongly in favor of remand” when “plaintiff now proceeds 3 |}exclusively on his state claims”); Bay Area Surgical Mgmt. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 4 WL 3235999, *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2012) (court declined to exercise supplemental 5 jurisdiction and remanded the case “in the interests of judicial economy, convenience, 6 || fairness, and comity,” when “the federal claims were eliminated at the pleading □□□□□□□□ 7 || Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and sua sponte 8 || REMANDS the case to Orange County Superior Court.! 9 10 || DATED: April 14, 2021 Ko Lo 11 f 7

14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ||! Having read and considered the papers presented by the parties, the Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15.