Sepulveda v. Perez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RICHARD SEPULVEDA, Case No. 23-cv-03897-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING STATE LAW 9 v. CLAIMS AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 10 ENCARNACION PEREZ, et al., FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

11 Defendants. Docket Nos. 16, 28 12

13 14 Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Richard Sepulveda’s motion for default 15 judgment. Mr. Sepulveda seeks a default judgment on two out of four claims asserted in his 16 operative complaint – i.e., the claims for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act 17 (“ADA”) and violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. 18 Judge Ryu issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the motion 19 be granted. See Docket No. 28 (R&R). This Court, however, noted that the R&R did not address 20 the matter of supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. The Court therefore issued an 21 order to show cause (“OSC”) directing Mr. Sepulveda to show cause as to why the Court should 22 not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. See Docket No. 31 23 (OSC) (citing, inter alia, Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022)). Mr. Sepulveda failed to file a 24 response to the OSC within the deadline ordered by the Court. The Court deems this a concession 25 that, under Vo and the other authorities cited in the OSC, it should decline to exercise 26 supplemental jurisdiction. 27 Accordingly, the Court hereby DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. 1 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). The Court also DENIES without prejudice Mr. Sepulveda’s motion for 2 || default judgment. Mr. Sepulveda is not barred, if he so chooses, from moving for default 3 || judgment on the ADA claim. See Sepulveda v. Isa, No. 24-cv-0620-AMO (N.D. Cal.) (Docket 4 || No. 21) (order, adopting report and recommendation, taking this approach); Sepulveda vy. 5 Tacqueria y Carniceria Martinez LLC, No. 23-cv-01781-SI (N.D. Cal.) (Docket No. 18) (same). 6 As to the remaining state law claims, the Court also DECLINES to exercise supplemental 7 || jurisdiction and DISMISSES the claims without prejudice pursuant to § 1367(c)(4). See, e.g., 8 Sepulveda v. Kobaree, No. 23-cv-02368-RS, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136036, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 9 || Aug. 4, 2023) (holding that California’s enhanced procedural requirements apply not just to Unruh 10 || Act claims but also other state law claims for violation of California Health & Safety Code § 11 19955). Although the Court’s OSC did not formally cover these claims, Mr. Sepulveda was given 12 sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard because the OSC did cover the Unruh Act claim and 5 13 the authorities cited by the Court expressly held that Unruh Act claims and other state law claims 14 are not treated any differently. See Ho v. Russi, 45 F.4th 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2022) (stating that 3 15 “the district court was required to provide [the plaintiff] with notice and an opportunity to be heard a 16 || before sua sponte declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing his state law 3 17 claim”). 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: August 26, 2024 22 23 EDWA . CHEN United States District Judge 25 26 27 28