Block v. Alzamzami et al, No. 1:2023cv00061 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations and DECLINING Supplemental Jurisdiction over Plaintiff's State Law Claims signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/5/2023.(Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HENDRIK BLOCK, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ESKANDAR T. ALZAMZAMI dba Fatboy Market, et al., 15 No. 1:23-cv-0061 JLT SKO ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS (Doc. 11) Defendants. 16 17 Hendrik Block seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of Title III of the 18 Americans with Disabilities Act, California’s Unruh Act, and California Health and Safety Code 19 §§ 19955, 19959. (Doc. 1.) Following an order to show cause regarding jurisdiction, the 20 assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending the Court 21 decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismiss the 22 claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). (Doc. 11.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff1 on April 14, 2023. Plaintiff 23 24 was informed any objections must be filed within 14 days of the date of service. (Doc. 11 at 7.) 25 In addition, Plaintiff was informed the “failure to file objections within the specified time may 26 result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 27 (9th Cir. 2014).) No objections were filed, and the time to do so has expired. 28 1 Defendants have not appeared in this action and default was entered by the Clerk of Court. (Doc. 7.) 1 1 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 2 Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 3 Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. 5 6 ADOPTED in full. 2. 3. 9 10 The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims arising under California’s Unruh Act and Health & Safety Code. 7 8 The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 14, 2023 (Doc. 11) are Plaintiff’s claims for violations of the Unruh Act and Cal. Health & Safety Code § 19955 and § 19959 are DISMISSED without prejudice. 4. This matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 5, 2023 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
