Delacruz v. Tanimura & Antle, Inc.

Full title: DANIEL DELACRUZ, Plaintiff, v. TANIMURA & ANTLE, INC., et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Jul 25, 2024

23-cv-03034-VKD (N.D. Cal. Jul. 25, 2024)

Opinion

23-cv-03034-VKD

07-25-2024

DANIEL DELACRUZ, Plaintiff, v. TANIMURA & ANTLE, INC., et al., Defendants.

Virginia K. DeMarchi, United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER RE TAI DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

RE: DKT. NO. 58

Virginia K. DeMarchi, United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff Daniel Delacruz, who is representing himself, filed this action against defendants Tanimura & Antle, Inc. (“TAI”), Mike Antle, and Carmen Ponce (collectively, “TAI defendants”) and Claudia Quirarte, asserting, among other things, unlawful disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.¹ Dkt. No. 1. Since the filing of this lawsuit, the Court has granted defendants' respective motions to dismiss Mr. Delacruz's claims (Dkt. Nos. 28, 29, 52, 53), and Mr. Delacruz has amended his complaint twice, asserting federal claims only against Ms. Quirarte (Dkt. Nos. 34, 55). In its most recent order, the Court dismissed the federal claims asserted against Ms. Quirarte, with leave to amend only as to the claim under the Rehabilitation Act. Dkt. No. 52. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of Mr. Delacruz's state law claims, unless and until he pleads a viable federal claim for relief. Id.

1 All parties have expressly consented that all proceedings in this matter may be heard and finally adjudicated by a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 73; Dkt. Nos. 6, 9, 14.

In the operative second amended complaint (“SAC”), Mr. Delacruz asserts only state law claims against the TAI defendants-namely, a claim for violation of his privacy rights under Article I, § 1 of the California Constitution (claim 2) and for breach of contract/“[o]rder to [s]how [c]ause [r]e [s]pecific [p]erformance and [i]njunctive [r]elief” (claim 3). Dkt. No. 55. In a separately filed order on Ms. Quirarte's motion to dismiss the SAC, the Court dismissed Mr. Delacruz sole federal claim for relief without leave to amend, and declined to exercise jurisdiction over any state law claims for relief. Inasmuch as the SAC asserts only state law claims against the TAI defendants, the Court dismisses those claims without prejudice to asserting those claims against those defendants in an appropriate state court.

The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.