Orlando Garcia v. BRE SSP Property Owner LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: May 24, 2021
• Docket: 8:21-cv-00558
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 ) 12 ) ) Case No.: SACV 21-00558-CJC(DFMx) 13 ORLANDO GARCIA, ) ) 14 ) Plaintiff, ) 15 ) ORDER DECLINING v. ) SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION 16 ) AND SUA SPONTE REMANDING ) CASE TO ORANGE COUNTY 17 ) SUPERIOR COURT BRE SSP PROPERTY OWNER LLC ) 18 and DOES 1-10, ) ) 19 ) ) 20 ) Defendant. ) 21 ) ) 22

23 On January 7, 2021, Plaintiff Orlando Garcia filed the instant lawsuit in Orange 24 County Superior Court against Defendant BRE SSP Property Owner LLC and unnamed 25 Does, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and 26 California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”). (Dkt. 1 Ex. 1 [Complaint].) 27 1 Defendant subsequently removed the case to this Court based on the federal question 2 posed by Plaintiff’s ADA claim. (Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal].) 3 4 On April 11, 2021, Plaintiff amended his Complaint and dropped his ADA claim, 5 the sole federal claim, leaving only state law claims for violations of the Unruh Act and 6 California’s Unfair Competition Law. (Dkts. 12‒13.) As a result, the Court ordered the 7 parties to show cause as to why the Court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction 8 over the remaining state law claims and remand the case. (Dkt. 14.) 9 10 Because Plaintiff filed an amended complaint which eliminated his sole federal 11 claim, “the cause of action on which the Court’s [original] jurisdiction rested is now 12 gone.” Horne v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 969 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1209 (C.D. Cal. 2013). 13 “Under § 1367(c)(3), therefore, the [C]ourt can properly exercise its discretion to remand 14 the supplemental state law claims.” Id. at 1209‒10; 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district 15 courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the 16 district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”); see San 17 Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470, 478 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating that 18 the Ninth Circuit does not require “any [] explanation for a district court’s reasons when 19 the district court [declines jurisdiction] under [§1367(c)(1–3)]”). In determining whether 20 to remand supplemental state law claims, courts are generally instructed to consider the 21 factors of “judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants.” United Mine 22 Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). These factors weigh strongly in 23 favor of remand when all federal claims have been dismissed before trial. See Horne, 24 969 F. Supp. 2d at 1207‒08, 1210; see also Millar v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 236 25 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (noting that “[t]he factor of comity also weighs 26 strongly in favor of remand” when “plaintiff now proceeds exclusively on his state 27 claims”); Bay Area Surgical Mgmt. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 2012 WL 3235999, *5 1 || the case “in the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” when 2 || federal claims were eliminated at the pleading phase”). This is especially true for 3 || ADA-related state law claims, like the ones at issue here, which have become an outsize 4 || portion of this Court’s docket following California’s implementation of heightened 5 || pleading requirements and increased filing fees.! Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to 6 || exercise supplemental jurisdiction and sua sponte REMANDS the case to Orange 7 County Superior Court.” 8 9 10 DATED: May 24, 2021 fho— 12 /

13 CORMAC J. CARNEY 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Wh According to statistics gathered by the Central District’s Clerk’s Office, in 2013, there were 419 ADA 23 || cases filed in the Central District, constituting only 3% of the civil actions filed. Since California’s heightened pleading requirements took effect, that number has increased steadily each year. In 2014, th 24 || year before the imposition of the $1,000 filing fee and additional pleading requirements for high- frequency litigants, 928 such cases were filed, comprising 7% of civil cases filed in this district. By 25 the first full year the requirements were in effect, the number was up to 1,386, making up 10% of 6 civil cases in this district. In 2017, the number of cases filed reached 1,670 (12% of civil cases), then 1,670 cases (18% of civil cases) in 2018, 3,595 cases (24% of civil cases) in 2019, and 2,149 cases (an 27 || incredible 27% of civil cases) in the first sx months of 2020. 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.