Sepulveda v. Taqueria y Carniceria Martinez LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 5, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-01781
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RICHARD SEPULVEDA, Case No. 23-cv-01781-SI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 9 v. RECOMMENDATION; DISMISSING STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT 10 TAQUERIA Y CARNICERIA MARTINEZ PREJUDICE; DENYING MOTION FOR LLC, et al., DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHOUT 11 PREJUDICE Defendants. 12 Re: Dkt. Nos. 12, 16

14 This is a disability access case, filed by plaintiff Richard Sepulveda against defendants 15 Taqueria y Carniceria Martinez LLC, Jirong Zhang, Feng Xin Li, and Does 1 to 50. Plaintiff brings 16 four causes of action, for alleged violations of: (1) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 17 (“ADA”); (2) California Health and Safety Code § 19955 et seq.; (3) California Civil Code §§ 54, 18 54.1 and 54.3 (“California’s Disabled Persons Act”); and (4) California Civil Code §§ 51 and 51.5 19 (“Unruh Act”). Dkt. No. 1. 20 On April 13, 2023, plaintiff filed suit in federal court and the case was assigned to Magistrate 21 Judge Lisa Cisneros. Dkt. Nos. 1, 3. Defendants have failed to appear in this case, and the Clerk 22 entered default against defendants on June 8, 2023. Dkt. Nos. 8, 9. 23 Plaintiff then filed a motion for default judgment, which remains pending. See Dkt. No. 12. 24 In response, Judge Cisneros issued an order to show cause why the Court should not decline to 25 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s 26 recent opinion in Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022). Dkt. No. 13. Plaintiff timely filed a 27 response to the order to show cause. Dkt. Nos. 14, 15. 1 On November 20, 2023, Judge Cisneros issued an order discharging the order to show cause 2 and asking the Clerk to reassign the case to a District Judge. Dkt. No. 16. As part of the order, 3 Judge Cisneros issued a report and recommendation, recommending that the Court: decline 4 supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims; dismiss the state law claims without 5 prejudice; and deny the pending motion for default judgment, without prejudice to renewal on the 6 remaining ADA claim. Objections to the report and recommendation were due December 4, 2023. 7 See Dkt. No. 16. To date, no party has filed objections. 8 The Court has reviewed the filings in this case, including plaintiff’s complaint, motion for 9 default judgment, and response to order to show cause. The Court hereby ADOPTS IN FULL Judge 10 Cisneros’s report and recommendation. See Dkt. No. 16. 11 To summarize, in determining whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law 12 claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), the Court applies the two-step inquiry articulated in Arroyo v. 13 Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021). “[A] district court must: (1) sufficiently explain why the 14 circumstances of the case are exceptional under § 1367(c)(4); and (2) show that the balance of the 15 Gibbs[1] values provides compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction in such circumstances.” Vo, 16 49 F.4th at 1171 (citing Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1210-11) (internal quotation marks omitted). 17 As Judge Cisneros noted, the first prong requires little analysis at this point. The Ninth 18 Circuit has now twice held that “exceptional circumstances” apply in cases such as these, where 19 plaintiffs bring disability access cases in federal court under both the ADA and the Unruh Act, 20 thereby “evad[ing] California’s procedural requirements” for such cases. See Vo, 49 F.4th at 1171; 21 Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1212-13. In the present case, as in Arroyo and Vo, plaintiff has brought claims 22 under both the ADA and the Unruh Act.2 Thus, the “exceptional circumstances” identified in Arroyo 23 and Vo also apply to this case. See Vo, 49 F.4th at 1173 (“to satisfy the first ‘case-specific’ prong, 24 1 See United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966). “[I]n determining whether 25 there are ‘compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction’ in a given case, the court should consider what best serves the principles of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity which underlie the 26 pendent jurisdiction doctrine articulated in Gibbs.” Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1210-11 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 27 1 the district court needs to only identify the exceptional circumstances and confirm that they apply 2 || to the particular case before it”) (citing Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1210). 3 As to the second prong, the undersigned agrees with Judge Cisneros that the balance of the 4 Gibbs values provide compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction in this case. This case has not 5 advanced past the pleading stage, as defendants have failed to appear. It is thus unlike Arroyo, 6 || where the Ninth Circuit found that the district court erred in declining to exercise supplemental 7 jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim after having already granted summary judgment on the ADA 8 || claim—the “fatal flaw” in Arroyo being that the district court waited until a “very late stage” of the 9 litigation to decline supplemental jurisdiction. See Vo, 49 F.4th at 1171-72 (citing Arroyo, 19 F.4th 10 at 1214). Rather, as in Vo, where the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to decline 11 supplemental jurisdiction, this case in one in which default has been entered and the plaintiff now 12 || moves for default judgment. This case is at precisely the same stage of proceedings that existed 5 13 when the district court declined supplemental jurisdiction in Vo. For the reasons cited in Vo and in 14 || Judge Cisneros’s report and recommendation, the Court finds that the Gibbs values favor declining 3 15 supplemental jurisdiction due to the unfairness of allowing plaintiff to bypass the limitations the 16 || California legislature has imposed on these claims and because exercising supplemental jurisdiction 3 17 || under the present circumstances would be an “affront to the comity between federal and state 18 courts[.|” See Vo, 49 F.4th at 1168-69, 1173; see also Dkt. No. 16 at 4-7. 19 Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the report and recommendation at Dkt. No. 16. The Court 20 || DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims, pursuant to 28 21 || U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and hereby DISMISSES those claims, without prejudice to re-filing in state 22 || court. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 12) is DENIED, without prejudice to 23 || renewal as to the remaining ADA claim. 24 Any renewed motion for default judgment shall be due no later than February 2, 2024. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: January 5, 2024 Site WU tee 27 28 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge