Orlando Garcia v. Resort Rental LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 7, 2021
• Docket: 8:20-cv-02351
• 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 20-02351-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 SAN CLEMENTE INN VACATION ) 18 PLAN OWNERS ASSOCIATION, LLC, ) ) 19 ) ) 20 ) Defendant. ) 21 ) ) 22

23 On November 3, 2020, Plaintiff Orlando Garcia filed the instant lawsuit in Orange 24 County Superior Court against Defendant San Clemente Inn Vacation Plan Owners 25 Association LLC, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) 26 and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”). (Dkt. 1-2 [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 June 2, 2021, Plaintiff amended his Complaint by adding a claim under 5 California’s Unfair Competition Law and dropping his ADA claim, the sole federal 6 claim. (Dkt. 21.) Plaintiff now pursues only state law claims for violations of the Unruh 7 Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law. (Id.) 8 9 Because Plaintiff filed an amended complaint which eliminated his sole federal 10 claim, “the cause of action on which the Court’s [original] jurisdiction rested is now 11 gone.” Horne v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 969 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1209 (C.D. Cal. 2013). 12 “Under § 1367(c)(3), therefore, the [C]ourt can properly exercise its discretion to remand 13 the supplemental state law claims.” Id. at 1209‒10; 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district 14 courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the 15 district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”); see San 16 Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470, 478 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating that 17 the Ninth Circuit does not require “any [] explanation for a district court’s reasons when 18 the district court [declines jurisdiction] under [§1367(c)(1–3)]”). In determining whether 19 to remand supplemental state law claims, courts are generally instructed to consider the 20 factors of “judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants.” United Mine 21 Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). These factors weigh strongly in 22 favor of remand when all federal claims have been dismissed before trial. See Horne, 23 969 F. Supp. 2d at 1207‒08, 1210; see also Millar v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 236 24 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (noting that “[t]he factor of comity also weighs 25 strongly in favor of remand” when “plaintiff now proceeds exclusively on his state 26 claims”); Bay Area Surgical Mgmt. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 2012 WL 3235999, *5 27 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2012) (declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remanding 1 || “the federal claims were eliminated at the pleading phase”). This is especially true for 2 || ADA-related state law claims, like the ones at issue here, which have become an outsize 3 || portion of this Court’s docket following California’s implementation of heightened 4 || pleading requirements and increased filing fees for high frequency litigants who file 5 || construction-related ADA claims.! Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to exercise 6 || supplemental jurisdiction and sua sponte REMANDS the case to Orange County 7 || Superior Court. 8 9 10 ll DATED: — June 7, 2021 12 fo * 2. , 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.