Opinion
1:23-cv-00244-ADA-BAM
06-30-2023
FERNANDO GASTELUM, Plaintiff, v. BEST BUY, INC., Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND DISMISSING STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF No. 8)
Plaintiff Fernando Gastelum (“Plaintiff”'), proceeding pro se, initiated this action on February 17, 2023, asserting claims for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), a claim for statutory damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), and a claim for damages under California Disabled Persons Act pursuant to California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3. (ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
Following an order to show cause, (ECF No. 4), on March 21, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff s Unruh Act claims, California Disabled Persons Act claim, and any other state law construction-related accessibility claim. (ECF No. 8.) The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims and those claims be dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 15.) No objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 21, 2023, (ECF No. 8), are ADOPTED in full;
2. The Court finds that it does not have diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim, California Disabled Persons Act claim, and any other state law construction-related accessibility claim;
3. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim, California Disabled Persons Act claim, and any other state law construction-related accessibility claim;
4. Plaintiffs Unruh Act claim, California Disabled Persons Act claim, and any other state law construction-related accessibility claims are DISMISSED without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); and
5. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.